ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security Situation

Pat Glass: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”. Excellent work and co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners has put those involved in terrorism under huge pressure. We continue to be vigilant in our efforts to counter the threat posed by those groupings, whose activities are condemned by the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

Pat Glass: I welcome the Secretary of State to her position. Security sources tell us that paramilitary involvement was evident in the public disorder around the disputed parades this summer. What is her assessment of loyalist paramilitary involvement in the riots seen in Belfast in July and August?

Theresa Villiers: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her congratulations. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), for all the work that he did for Northern Ireland. I also take this opportunity to reflect on the contribution that Sir Stuart Bell made to Northern Ireland as a Front-Bench spokesman. He was a great Member of this House and will be much missed.
	In response to the hon. Lady’s question on public disorder, it was deeply regrettable that we saw scenes on our television screens a few weeks ago that many had started to associate with Northern Ireland’s past. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is determined to ensure that those scenes are dealt with, and we are doing everything that we can to support its efforts to crack down on paramilitaries and on rioting of the disgraceful sort that we saw in September.

Jack Lopresti: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every measure will be taken to prevent the so-called new IRA from destabilising the political process?

Theresa Villiers: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. A huge amount of effort is being put in by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners. I also commend the contribution of the Garda Siochana in the efforts to counter terrorism. We are determined to defeat the threat of people who continue to have lethal intent and will do everything that we can to prevent them from achieving their aims.

Nigel Dodds: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her position, and indeed the Minister of State. I wish them well in their new responsibilities.
	The Secretary of State will know that the Home Secretary announced this morning that the threat level from dissident republicans on the mainland has been reduced from “substantial” to “moderate”. Does she share the concern of many people that such an announcement may be premature and somewhat counter-productive? Will she assure the House, given the recent experience of intelligence-level reports, that there will be no reduction in security and no complacency on the part of the security forces?

Theresa Villiers: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will continue to be vigilant in the face of the continuing threat of Northern Ireland-related terrorism. He will appreciate that the change announced today relates to Great Britain, as he said. The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”. In both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government are focused on defeating terrorism and we will use all the means at our disposal to do that.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State. She referred to the situation in Northern Ireland and said that the threat level remains at “severe”. In the light of that, has she had discussions with the Chief Constable about the threat level from dissident republicans? Will she look positively on any request from the Chief Constable to extend the Treasury reserve funding of £200 million, which was announced in 2010, to help the PSNI deal with the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I had the opportunity to discuss those matters with the Chief Constable in some detail yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the importance of the £200 million of additional funding, which is devoted to countering the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. We will certainly have discussions with the Chief Constable and the Treasury on what might occur after the cessation of that £200 million of funding.

Lady Hermon: I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady and her colleague to the Northern Ireland Office. I am quite sure that they will enjoy their posting to the mainland in Northern Ireland. Now on to my question—and it is a serious one.
	Given that two very brave, young British soldiers were murdered by dissident republicans at Massereene barracks in March 2009 and that, since then, we have lost several of our soldiers in Afghanistan who grew up in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Lady confirm exactly when her colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, will visit Northern Ireland, not to tell the troops that they are to be made redundant, but to boost their morale, beginning with Palace barracks in my constituency of North Down?

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, and I will certainly pass on her request to the Secretary of State for Defence. I understand that a Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence is due to visit Northern Ireland fairly soon.

Vernon Coaker: May I begin by paying tribute to my colleague Sir Stuart Bell? He served as a Front-Bench Northern Ireland spokesman and retained a deep affection and concern for the place throughout his time in the House.
	I wish the previous Secretary of State well in his new post and welcome the new Secretary of State to her place. I want to work with her constructively and in a bipartisan way, particularly on issues relating to security.
	This morning, the Home Office reduced the threat to Great Britain from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, but the threat in Northern Ireland itself remains “severe”. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no downgrading of the Government’s commitment to combat terrorism anywhere in the United Kingdom?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The change to the threat level does not affect our commitment to bearing down hard on the small minority of people who still seek to use violence and terrorism as a means to achieve political ends.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. Does she agree that we need to confront those who want to destroy peace at both the security and a community level, and that we should not take for granted the progress that has been made?
	Young people in socially and economically deprived areas are vulnerable to exploitation by paramilitaries. With one in four out of work, what is the Secretary of State doing to tackle unemployment and ensure that Northern Ireland’s young people get the better future that they were promised and deserve?

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the bipartisan approach that the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue. It is of course vital that we bear down on terrorism using a range of strategies. We have already discussed the £200 million of additional funding that the Government have devoted to countering the security threat and keeping people in Northern Ireland safe and secure. We are doing all we can to boost the economy with our programme to repair the public finances and reduce the deficit. We are reducing corporation tax across the United Kingdom to enhance the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for inward investment, and we are providing tax reliefs for the creative industries, including high-end television. We are determined that Northern Ireland will remain a great place in which to do business.

Economic Development

David Rutley: What recent discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and a number of their colleagues, and we have renewed
	the Government’s commitment to supporting their efforts to promote economic development and help rebuild and rebalance the economy.

David Rutley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Financial Times recently described Belfast as the top destination globally for investing in financial services technology. Does she agree that when it comes to attracting and encouraging foreign direct investment, Northern Ireland has a great deal to offer potential investors?

Theresa Villiers: It has indeed, and I had the honour of discussing these matters in a meeting in the city only recently. Northern Ireland has seen some striking success stories, such as the investment by Citigroup and the New York Stock Exchange. I praise the role of the universities in Northern Ireland, which have engaged with business, particularly in the financial services technology sector. That is an incredibly important industry for the UK as a whole, and it is a matter of real credit to Northern Ireland that it has successfully obtained so many inward investment jobs in the financial sector.

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleague to their positions.
	I understand that in the negotiations on corporation tax, the point at issue is not one of principle but one of cost, with one side estimating the cost to the Northern Ireland block at £300 million and the other estimating it as being in the region of £420 million. What is the Secretary of State’s understanding of that? If the latter is the case, how does she intend to suggest that the gap be met in discussions with the Treasury, and what will her advice to the Prime Minister be?

Theresa Villiers: Real progress has been made on the issue. The working group on corporation tax concluded on Thursday, and we are now proceeding to write up our findings and will report them to the Prime Minister in due course. We have an idea of how devolved corporation tax might work in a way that would not impose unnecessary administrative burdens on business. The hon. Lady is right that there are still important practical issues to resolve and alternatives to consider, and we will continue to work on those matters.

Stephen Lloyd: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleague to their new positions.
	When it comes to economic development, the Secretary of State will know that about 70% of employment in Northern Ireland is in the public sector. What will she do to grow the private sector? I hope she will work closely with bodies such as the Northern Ireland Federation of Small Businesses.

Theresa Villiers: I am very happy to work with all business bodies in Northern Ireland, and they do a great job in representing Northern Ireland. Much has already been done to enhance the competitiveness of Northern Ireland—in particular with the boost for superfast broadband—and Belfast is due to become one of the UK’s first 10 super-connected cities. The United Kingdom Government took the decision to devolve long-haul air passenger duty to conserve vital transatlantic flights,
	and we are working hard to attract inward investment. It is important to use the UK’s network of embassies around the world to promote the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, as a great place in which to do business.

David Simpson: What support will the Secretary of State give to Northern Ireland when it comes to negotiations with the EU on regional aid?

Theresa Villiers: I had the privilege of meeting Arlene Foster to discuss that matter last week. We decided that we would work together to make representations to Brussels on assisted-area status in Northern Ireland, and together we will make the case for Northern Ireland.

Fuel Laundering and Smuggling

Rosie Cooper: What progress she has made on implementing the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s third report of session 2010-12 on Fuel Laundering and Smuggling in Northern Ireland, HC 1504.

Michael Penning: May I, too, pay tribute to Sir Stuart Bell? He served as shadow Northern Ireland Minister and served his country in many different roles. He will be a sad loss to us all.
	Fuel fraud is primarily an excise offence and a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which works closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and its counterparts, including the Northern Ireland Office. I welcome the report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It was very useful, and many of the issues and recommendations it contains will be taken forward. Fuel fraud is taken very seriously and remains a high priority.

Rosie Cooper: Following the memorandum of understanding signed by HMRC and Irish revenue commissioners, will the Minister say what progress has been made on putting in place a single tender procedure for the marker for rebated diesel, and will he assure the House that there will be no slippage on the agreed timetable?

Michael Penning: Work continues on that agreement, and there is no doubt that dealing with fuel fraud, as well as with tobacco smuggling, is a top priority for the Government in the Province. We know that money from things such as fuel smuggling gets into the wrong hands and jeopardises the peace that we are all looking for.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their positions.
	One recommendation in the report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was that sentences for such crimes in Northern Ireland should be strengthened because they are far weaker than those in Great Britain. Will the Minister do all he can to help bring about those stronger sentences recommended by the Committee?

Michael Penning: I met the Minister for Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we will work together to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. As I said
	earlier, money made from such crimes often goes to the wrong areas, and we are looking forward to ensuring that it does not.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I add my voice of congratulation to the Secretary of State; I know that the people of Northern Ireland wish her and her colleague well in their new roles.
	A recent HMRC report on measuring tax gaps revealed that fuel smuggling over the past year has increased from involving 12% of all diesel sold in Northern Ireland to 25%—a staggering increase. Does the Minister agree that HMRC must be encouraged to find a measure that will allow it to mark properly fuel in Northern Ireland, so that it cannot be stripped of its mark and sold as counterfeit?

Michael Penning: This sort of technical work is being looked at carefully, and one element that will help enormously is the lorry road user charging legislation that the Government started to bring forward yesterday. That will create a more level playing field for all hauliers—those who are hit hardest by this problem—across the entire United Kingdom including, quite rightly, in Northern Ireland.

Economic Policies

Ian Lucas: What assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s economic policies in Northern Ireland.

Chris Ruane: What assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s economic policies in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: The Government’s priority is to return the UK economy to sustainable, balanced growth. To achieve that we are tackling the deficit and creating the conditions for private sector investment and growth. Such investment and growth is critically needed to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, and we shall work in close partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive to achieve it.

Ian Lucas: I welcome the Secretary of State to her position. Will she reassure the people of Northern Ireland that none of the £40 million that the Government have admitted they wasted on the west coast main line franchise fiasco will come out of the budget of her new Department?

Theresa Villiers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland. I noticed that, under Labour, the Northern Ireland economy became more dependent on public spending. The west coast incident has no impact on Northern Ireland—I am happy to assure him of that.

Chris Ruane: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new position as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and thank her for her contribution to the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which she visited on Monday.
	Less consensually, the chief economist of the Northern Bank last week said:
	“Ed Balls and Vernon Coaker were correct this week in asserting that Northern Ireland requires strong growth initiatives now, not later. As well as government investment on infrastructure, Northern Ireland needs demand stimulating
	policies such a VAT reduction and tax breaks for local companies taking on more workers. These are the initiatives that are needed to create jobs”.
	Does the Secretary of State agree?

Theresa Villiers: When the shadow Chancellor finally got round to visiting Northern Ireland, all he came up with was more tax, more borrowing and more spending. The reality is that that is all Labour has to offer in its economic policy. All hon. Members know that we cannot borrow our way out of a debt crisis. The problems in Northern Ireland and across the UK are to a large extent caused by the significant deficit left to this country by the Labour party.

Jim Shannon: Last year, Facebook paid £280,000 on tax on UK earnings of £20.4 million, because most of the moneys were transferred and paid through its base in Dublin. Does the Secretary of State agree that Facebook would have paid a substantial amount to the Treasury if it had paid corporation tax in Northern Ireland, and, more importantly, that that would have boosted the Northern Ireland economy?

Theresa Villiers: It is important that all companies pay their fair share of tax. HMRC has devoted very significant resources to cracking down on tax evasion and artificial tax avoidance. The Government are devoting more effort and energy to that task than any previous Government, and we will continue to do so.

James Gray: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the great drawbacks in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, on job-producing economic initiatives is the dead hand of the planning system? What steps will she take to seek to encourage the Northern Ireland Executive to hasten the planning system, particularly with regard to large-scale projects?

Theresa Villiers: I agree with my hon. Friend that reforming the planning system is vital in ensuring that a country is a good place in which to do business. He will appreciate that planning is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. I very much welcome the Executive’s work on seeing whether the planning system can be reformed to make it more effective and efficient.

Mark Durkan: May I join the compliments of the occasion to the ministerial team and add to the tributes to Sir Stuart Bell?
	The Secretary of State seized on concerns about current banking and business in Northern Ireland, but is she focusing on the future business of banking in Northern Ireland and the implications that arise from UK legislation, such as financial services and banking reform measures, and the shake-up in the Irish banks and moves towards banking union, which has severe implications for our economy?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Clearly, Northern Ireland was perhaps more impacted by the property crash and banking crash than many other parts of the UK because of its links with the Republic of Ireland economy. The hangover of negative equity is a serious problem, which is why it is essential that we work to ensure that Northern Ireland gets the
	most it can out of the recently announced funding for lending scheme to get much-needed business credit flowing back to business.

Mr Speaker: I feel sure we will have a textbook example of brevity from the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain).

Peter Hain: I congratulate the Secretary of State on assuming her post. May I probe her on the link between security and her economic policies? It was no coincidence that Labour achieved the 2007 settlement with record jobs and record levels of growth. Now we have the very reverse, with young loyalists and republicans involved in all sorts of civil disturbances. There is a link.

Theresa Villiers: One reason we need to boost the Northern Ireland economy is that we must do all we can to choke off potential support for terrorism. It is also important that the UK Government, the community across Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive work on generating a genuinely shared future and on bringing down sectarian barriers. That, too, is an important part of our strategy to choke off support for terrorism.

Stephen Pound: Belfast’s glorious maritime history is an essential component of economic growth. In welcoming the Minister of State to his position, may I thank him for the work he has undertaken to ensure that HMS Caroline will for ever nestle within the slightly chilly bosom of Belfast lough? When he draws up the guest list for the re-launch, will he not forget Chief Petty Officer Yeoman William Perkiss, the last instructor on HMS Caroline and now a Doorkeeper in this very House?

Theresa Villiers: I happily praise the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, the shadow Minister, who I know has had a long-standing interest in HMS Caroline. I also thank the National Heritage Memorial Fund for providing £1 million to secure the future of HMS Caroline in Belfast. [Interruption.] I hope that that will be welcomed by Chief Petty Officer Yeoman William Perkiss, who is part of our House of Commons.

Mr Speaker: I am immensely grateful to the Secretary of State, but we need a bit of order in the House so that we can hear both question and answer alike.

Air Passenger Duty

Alasdair McDonnell: What assessment she has made of the effect of the level of air passenger duty for short-haul flights on the regional economy in Northern Ireland.

Michael Penning: The impact of air passenger duty on Northern Ireland was carefully considered last year, and, in recognition of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agreed to the Northern Ireland Executive’s request for the devolution of APD for all direct long-haul flights departing from Northern Ireland airports.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their first Northern Ireland questions, and associate myself with the kind comments about Sir Stuart Bell.
	Is the Minister aware that the business community in Northern Ireland is unanimous in its view that the high level of passenger duty is helping to strangle potential economic recovery? Will he tell us more about the unique circumstances that he mentioned?

Michael Penning: I just about heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I think he asked about future APD. Interestingly, when I looked into the matter, the Executive did not ask for short-haul powers. If they had, we would have considered it. If they want short-haul powers, therefore, we will consider the matter, although there would, of course, be a cost to their own Exchequer.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cut in APD in Northern Ireland will allow airlines to develop further long-haul services and significantly stimulate the Northern Ireland economy, and would that not be true across the whole of the UK?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend draws me into territory that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is sitting to my left, will probably ensure I do not dwell on. There was a sustainable argument for the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland. The Executive requested long-haul APD, and the Chancellor gave it to them. Should they request something more, we would consider it.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister agree that the reduction in APD is a key driver in attracting inward investment? Will he agree to negotiate with the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, should it propose that short-haul APD—in other words, at Belfast City and Londonderry airports, as well as for international flights—also be reduced?

Michael Penning: I will continue to work as closely as I can with all parts of Northern Ireland, particularly the Department of Finance and Personnel and businesses, but there would be a cost to the Minister for Finance and Personnel, which I know he is aware of, but as yet we have not had a request for short haul. If we do, we will look at it.

Smithwick Tribunal

Jeffrey M Donaldson: What discussions she has had with the Irish Government on extending the deadline for the completion of the Smithwick tribunal.

Michael Penning: As yet, I have not had the opportunity to have introductory discussions with the Irish Government, although I have had discussions with the Irish ambassador in London. Although the sponsorship of the Smithwick tribunal is a matter for the Irish Government, I am aware of the recent intention to extend the deadline for the tribunal to complete its work.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: It is absolutely crucial that the tribunal is extended because of the revelations in recent times. We need to get to the truth of the matter. These were the two most senior RUC officers to be murdered by the IRA and there is strong evidence of collusion on the part of Irish state forces, so we need to know precisely what happened.

Michael Penning: I think we would all agree that what we require is the truth. The Republic of Ireland Government have been asked for an extension, that is true, and we will give all the assistance we can. In recent weeks we have given more help in the form of the evidence we have discovered in the north and we will continue to do so.

Legacy Issues

Naomi Long: What further steps she plans to take following the initial round of talks with Northern Ireland party leaders aimed at finding consensus on dealing with the past and its legacy.

Theresa Villiers: It is important to find a way to deal with the legacy of the past in an inclusive way that recognises the pain caused to victims and survivors while helping everyone in Northern Ireland move forward towards a genuinely shared future. A way forward can be delivered only if a wide range of people and political parties in Northern Ireland work together to build consensus.

Naomi Long: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleague to their new roles. Does she agree that finding an agreed and comprehensive way of addressing the legacy of the past is critical and should be a priority not only because of the current generation, who were impacted on directly by the troubles, but as a means of tackling the deep-seated sectarianism that still exists in Northern Ireland and prevents us from achieving our objectives financially, economically and socially?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that that is an important priority and pay tribute to the work of the hon. Lady and her party on this matter. It is important for us all to work together to see whether we can build consensus and foster mutual understanding of the past, reconciling the different perspectives of the past in the different traditions in Northern Ireland. As she says, our goals should be to bring people together and try to eliminate the sectarian divides that still exist.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Bob Stewart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 October.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Bob Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the full panoply of Government powers is used to investigate the predatory activities of the late Mr Jimmy Savile?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The allegations and what seems to have happened are completely appalling, and they are shocking the entire country. The allegations leave many institutions, perhaps particularly the BBC, with serious questions to answer. Above all the question is, “How did he get away with this for so long?” The most important thing is that the police investigation is properly resourced and allowed to continue. I do not rule out further steps, but we now have independent investigations by the BBC and into the NHS, and today I can confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that his principal legal adviser will again review the papers from the time when a case was put to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions will specifically consider what more can be done to alert relevant authorities when there are concerns but a prosecution is not taken forward. The Government will do everything we can, and other institutions must do what they can, to ensure that we learn the lessons from this and that it can never happen again.

Edward Miliband: Last week, the Prime Minister told this House that
	“we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 316.]
	Will he now explain—including to his Energy Secretary—how he will guarantee everybody in the country the lowest tariff?

David Cameron: As I said last week, we are going to use the Energy Bill to ensure that customers get the lowest tariffs. That is what we want to do. There is a real problem here that is worth looking at: last year, there were more than 400 tariffs. That is completely baffling for customers and although encouraging people to switch can help make a difference, we need to go further and we need to use the law. I am in no doubt that we are on the side of people who work hard, pay their bills and want a better deal.

Edward Miliband: The only people who were baffled last week were all the Prime Minister’s Ministers, who did not know anything about his announcement. Last week, it was a gilt-edged guarantee from the Prime Minister. Of course, now we have read the small print it has totally unravelled—another dodgy offer from this Prime Minister. Why cannot he admit the truth just for once? He does not do the detail, he made up the policy and he got caught out.

David Cameron: We are going to use the Energy Bill to ensure that people get the lowest tariff. The Deputy Prime Minister said exactly the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman wants to look at the detail; let me ask him about this detail—yes, we have his entire energy policy laid out for us. Perhaps he can tell us something. Now he says he wants to scrap Ofgem; in government, he kept Ofgem. Now he says he wants to pool energy supplies; in government Labour scrapped pooling energy
	supplies. Now he says he wants to refer the big six to the Competition Commission; then he said he would not do it because it would be wrong. I am all in favour of switching, but this is ridiculous.

Edward Miliband: Let us talk about my record as Energy Secretary. I want to thank the Prime Minister for the Conservative party briefing document issued last Thursday—after the chaos at PMQs. It reveals something very interesting. While I was the Energy Secretary, the average dual fuel bill fell by £110; under him, it has risen by £200, so I will compare my record to his any day. [Interruption.] Look, the part-time Chancellor is giving advice again. I am actually coming on to one of his favourite subjects—the west coast main line.
	The former railways Minister, now the Northern Ireland Secretary, told us in August about the franchise process, saying:
	“We’ve tested it very robustly”.
	The former Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for International Development—she does not really want the job, but she is down the Bench over there—said:
	“The process is incredibly robust”.
	Yet we learn today that concerns about flaws in the process were raised by the bidders as long ago as May 2011. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any Minister knew about the bidders’ concerns?

David Cameron: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman says he wants to talk about his record as Energy Secretary, so I think we should spend a little bit of time on that. The fact is, under Labour, gas bills doubled and electricity bills were up more than 50%. When he became Energy Secretary, the companies were making a £25 loss per bill; when he left government, they were making £55 profit per bill. He did not stand up to the vested interests; he stuffed their pockets with cash. Right, we have dealt with that—oh, by the way, while we are on his energy record, he put in place in his low-carbon transition plan a policy that would have added £179 to every single person’s bill in the country. Perhaps when he gets up, he can apologise for that.

Edward Miliband: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps Members on both sides could calm down. Let us now hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

Edward Miliband: Even the Prime Minister is taking his habit of not answering questions to a new level. I asked him a question—[Interruption.] If he wants to swap places, I am very happy to do so. I asked him a question about the railways. [Interruption.] The Chancellor is shouting from a sedentary position, but it is not the ticket that needs upgrading; in my view, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The mishandling of this process has cost taxpayers up to £100 million, so which of the Prime Minister’s former Transport Ministers who oversaw the bidding is responsible for this multi-million pound fiasco?

David Cameron: There is a proper independent investigation into what happened with the west coast main line. The Secretary of State for Transport has made a full statement to this House and has explained
	what will be done so that commuters continue to receive a good service and we get to the bottom of what went wrong. What is interesting—and what the country will notice—is that the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the Chancellor because he cannot talk about the economy because he has got no plans to increase the private sector. He cannot talk about the deficit because he has got no plans to cut it. He cannot talk about welfare because he opposes our plans to cap it. He cannot talk about all the issues that matter to this country—and that is why he stands up and just tells a whole lot of rubbish jokes.

Edward Miliband: I think we can take it from that answer that no one is taking responsibility for what happened on the railways. Ministers did not know the detail, they did not do the work, and they got caught out—but who can blame them? They are just playing follow my leader, after all.
	This is what the right hon. Gentleman said before he became Prime Minister:
	“We must provide the modern Conservative alternative. Clear. Competent. Inspiring.”
	Mr. Speaker, where did it all go wrong?

David Cameron: I will tell you what has happened under this Government in the last week. Inflation: down. Unemployment: down. Crime: down. Waiting lists: down. Borrowing: down. That is what is happening, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the real issues, because he is not up to the job.

Edward Miliband: It is good to see the crimson tide back. This is the reality: the Prime Minister is living in a parallel universe. It has been another disastrous week for his Government. Last week he defended the Chief Whip; now the Chief Whip has gone; he made up an energy policy; that has gone too; and he has lost millions of pounds on the railways. Is not the truth that there is no one else left to blame for the shambles of his Government? It goes right to the top.

David Cameron: It is only a bad week if you think it is bad that unemployment is coming down. We think it is good. It is only a bad week if you regret the fact that inflation is coming down. We think it is a good thing for our country. It is only a bad week if you do not think it is a good thing that a million more people are in work. That is what is happening in our country. Every bit of good news sends that team into a complete decline, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the good news will keep coming.

Chris Kelly: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the good news that there has been a 13% fall in recorded crime in the west midlands over the past 12 months, and congratulating West Midlands police and the Dudley local policing unit on their performance? Robbery is down by 31% and house burglaries are down by 29% in my area. Does not that fall in crime show that police reform is working?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Not only has recorded crime fallen by 6%, but the crime survey showed that it had fallen by 6%. This is a time when we are making difficult decisions about police funding, but owing to the combination of
	that police reform—the changes that we are making—and a tougher approach to criminal justice, crime is falling and public satisfaction with the police is going up.

Gareth Thomas: Last year the Prime Minister told the House that there was no reason why front-line police officer numbers needed to fall, but my constituents in Harrow tell me that they are seeing fewer police on our streets. Is not the real truth that there are 6,800 fewer police officers since he came to power?

David Cameron: What is actually happening is that the number of neighbourhood police officers has gone up by 2,360 since 2010.

Peter Bone: Last week planning permission was granted for a large retail leisure park on derelict land at Skew Bridge, between my constituency and the Corby constituency. It will create 2,000 new jobs, and will provide a large branch of Marks and Spencer and a stunning nature reserve. Labour opposes that development. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whom the people of Corby should support—Christine Emmett and the Conservatives, who are campaigning for 2,000 new jobs, or Labour’s Corby luddites?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has made the excellent point that it is this party and this Government who are getting behind economic development. As I have just said, every piece of good news is a disaster for Labour Members. They wake up every morning wanting more unemployment, but unemployment is coming down. They wake up wanting inflation to rise, but inflation is coming down. As we can see in Corby, it is the Conservatives who are getting behind growth and jobs in the future.

Nigel Dodds: During the last election, the Prime Minister made many pledges to the electorate. One of those pledges was that he would help to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Given that our economy lags behind the United Kingdom average and, indeed, behind the position in Scotland in terms of key economic indicators, when can we expect an announcement from the Prime Minister on the steps that he will take to help to rebalance our economy?

David Cameron: I do want to see the Northern Irish economy rebalance; it badly needs to, because the size of the state sector is so big and accounts for so much of Northern Ireland GDP. We are continuing to pursue the policy of looking at a lower corporation tax rate for Northern Ireland, because of the land border with the Republic. I do not believe that is the only thing we should look at. We also need to see how we can boost manufacturing and small businesses, increase the rate of business start-up and also do all the things we can to encourage inward investment into Northern Ireland, which I have been doing, including on the trips I have been making to other parts of the globe.

Crispin Blunt: On Monday I was delighted when the Prime Minister put his personal rocket boosters under payment by results for rehabilitation. Will he, as First Lord of the Treasury, ensure that the Treasury stands four-square behind the Ministry of Justice as it designs and delivers
	the first generation of payment-by-results programmes, which are radical, globally new and underwrite unquantifiable cash consequences of success for the next spending review period?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We should be bringing payment by results to all of the criminal justice system. Currently, we spend over £1 billion on probation. I want to see payment by results being the norm rather than the exception. To be fair to the Treasury, when it designed payment by results in the welfare system, it allowed the Department for Work and Pensions to spend the future receipts of lower benefit claims. I am sure the Treasury will be equally inventive and creative when it comes to making sure we get better value for money and better results in our criminal justice system.

Gavin Shuker: Last week from the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister said that services at Kettering hospital were safe. This week we have learned that the official review’s so-called best option is to get rid of many vital services in our hospital and to reduce the number of beds by 80%. Is it not the truth that you cannot trust the Tories on the NHS?

David Cameron: What is true is that you can always guarantee that Labour Members of Parliament will get up in Parliament and scaremonger about our NHS. What I said last week is absolutely right.

Jackie Doyle-Price: With 170,000 fewer people on benefits and 1 million new jobs created, should it not be perfectly clear that this Government’s plan is working?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The figures showed last week that there are more people in work than at any time in our history. There are more women in work than at any time in our history, and since the election the number of full-time jobs has increased faster than the number of part-time jobs. There is absolutely no complacency on the Government Benches, but we have got to do everything we can to continue the progress—getting people into work, getting the long-term unemployed into work and cracking down on youth unemployment as well.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Prime Minister explain the relationship between Virgin Care donations to the Tory party, the number of Virgin Care shareholders on clinical commissioning group boards and the number of NHS contracts that have been awarded to Virgin Care?

David Cameron: All donations to political parties are properly disclosed and properly announced, but the difference, I have to say, between the donations that the Conservative party gets from individuals and businesses, and the trade unions’ donations to the Labour party is that they effectively buy votes at the Labour party’s conference and policies in its manifesto, and they vote for the Labour leader as well. The trade unions pay the money, they get the votes. That is the scandal in funding parties.

Henry Smith: Under the previous Labour Government the national health service lost hundreds of millions of pounds because the cost of treating foreign patients was not properly recovered. Can I get an assurance from my right hon. Friend that both the Department of Health and the Home Office will now work together to resolve this issue?

David Cameron: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. This area—who should pay, how much and when—has become much too complicated, so I have asked that Ministers get together to simplify it. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is going to be leading this process, and I hope we can come up with a simplified system in which the public will have real trust.

Margaret Hodge: Jimmy Carr avoided £3.3 million of tax last year, and the Prime Minister said that was morally wrong. Apple, Google, Facebook, eBay and Starbucks have between them avoided nearly £900 million of tax. Will the Prime Minister now take this opportunity to condemn their behaviour as morally wrong?

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady makes an important point. This is an international problem that all countries are struggling with: how to make sure that companies pay tax in an appropriate way. I am not happy with the current situation; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to look at it very carefully. We need to make sure that we are encouraging these businesses to invest in our country—as they are doing—but they should be paying fair taxes as well.

Peter Tapsell: May I ask my right hon. Friend why, as he told me on Monday, he thinks that the single currency needs a banking union, as the crisis in the euro has been caused not by the absence of a banking union, but by the absence of a single fiscal policy? Yet, if a fiscal union were introduced, it would certainly be dominated by Germany, and that would lead to the death of democracy throughout most of Europe. So is not the least painful solution the abolition of the euro and the return to national currencies?

David Cameron: What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that I believe that the insecurity in the eurozone is caused in part by both those issues: the lack of a fiscal union, but also the lack of a banking union. One of the problems in the eurozone at the moment is the different level of interest rates in Spain, Italy and Portugal, which is in part because of concerns about the link between weak banks and sovereign Governments. Only when we have a banking union will there be greater security about those weak banks. We have a single currency in the United Kingdom, and we also have a banking union in the United Kingdom; we would not treat banks differently because they are in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, rather than in England. I believe a working single currency will need a working banking union; I think that is logically consistent and sensible.

Kevin Barron: Last week we had a Government Chief Whip who was educated at Rugby public school, and this week we have one who was educated at Eton. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give us an update on his campaign to spread privilege.

David Cameron: I would argue that Members across this House would recognise that the record of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) stands for itself. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down.

Rob Wilson: After the BBC director-general’s appearance before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday, I hope the whole House will agree that it is essential that the two independent inquiries get to the truth. Full details of those inquiries are still sketchy, despite my having sent two letters to the BBC asking for full disclosure. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for full details to be published today, so that both inquiries can have the full confidence of the public and Jimmy Savile’s victims can hear the truth?

David Cameron: First, may I commend my hon. Friend on the good, valuable and dedicated work he has done on this issue of making sure that all these institutions get to the truth? To be fair to the BBC, I believe that the two inquiries it has set up qualify as independent inquiries. The inquiry into the “Newsnight” programme is being carried out by the former head of Sky News, Nick Pollard, and the second—and more important, in many ways—review into the culture and practices of the BBC going back many years is being led by a former Appeal Court judge, Dame Janet Smith. As my hon. Friend says, it is very important that the BBC makes clear that these inquiries can go where the evidence leads, have access to all the paperwork and be able to be truly independent and get to the truth on behalf of all the victims of Jimmy Savile.

Robert Flello: Caught out, the Prime Minister refused to answer a question last week, so will he now tell us why he will not publish the e-mails, texts and other correspondence between himself, Rebekah Brooks, News International and Andy Coulson, so that we can judge for ourselves? What is he frightened of: scandal, embarrassment—or is there something more damning that he is frightened of?

David Cameron: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but it was this Government who set up the Leveson inquiry, and have co-operated with it and given it all the information it has asked for.

David Mowat: In March, my constituent Emma Hickman was informed that her fiancé, Private Daniel Wade of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, had died in Afghanistan. Three months later, she gave birth to Daniel’s baby, Lexie- Mai. The Army will not accept paternity without evidence; nor will it release the DNA without a court order. As a consequence, Lexie-Mai receives nothing. Will the Prime Minister help to expedite this case? Will he also require that the Army routinely holds DNA, as happens in other countries, such as the United States?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Cameron: On the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, I will certainly look at that. I was as shocked as he was when I found out about this case. I will do everything I can to try to expedite—as he says—a conclusion to it. I am sure that the sincere condolences of everyone in this House go to Private Wade’s family. This is an absolutely dreadful situation and it cannot be allowed to continue. The Ministry of Defence is aware of it, and it raises some complicated legal issues, but the reaction from colleagues around the House when my hon. Friend said what he said shows that we have to move quickly and get this sorted.

Michael Connarty: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House last year that the UK would lead the world in eradicating modern-day slavery? Could he explain to the House why his Whips organised, last Friday, to talk out my Bill that would eradicate that problem in the supply chains of British companies? Will he meet me and the people who support the Bill so that we can move this campaign forward?

David Cameron: This Government have an excellent record in combating modern-day slavery, not least because we continue to commit, through our international aid programme, to tackle those countries where it still, so regrettably, exists. I will look very carefully at the Bill that the hon. Gentleman mentions and perhaps write to him about the issue.

Simon Wright: A number of major employers in my constituency are calling for greater certainty for investors in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, low-carbon energy. Will the Prime Minister respond to their calls—specifically for a 2030 carbon intensity target for the power sector?

David Cameron: I am looking very carefully at these issues, but I have to say that we have already taken the most important step, which is to set the renewables obligation certificates—the ROCs—out into the future, so that investors know that they can invest, for instance in offshore wind, knowing what the return is going to be. There will be more detail, of course, when we produce the Energy Bill later in this year.

Derek Twigg: May I refer the Prime Minister to the Hansard record from 23 May 2012? The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) asked him the following:
	“Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that he will not succumb to the diktat from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to prisoners voting”.
	His reply was:
	“The short answer to that is yes.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 1127.]
	Will he confirm that that is still his position? I hope that it is. Will he tell us how he is going to get around breaking European law?

David Cameron: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The House of Commons has voted against prisoners having the vote. I do not
	want prisoners to have the vote, and they should not get the vote—I am very clear about that. If it helps to have another vote in Parliament on another resolution to make it absolutely clear and help put the legal position beyond doubt, I am happy to do that. But no one should be in any doubt: prisoners are not getting the vote under this Government.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year there was a borough council-run referendum in my constituency about whether to locate an energy-from-waste incinerator on the edge of King’s Lynn? Is he aware that on a 61% turnout, 65,516 of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) voted no? That amounted to a staggering 92.7% voting no. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential for local democracy and for localism that my constituents and these people are listened to?

David Cameron: I think it is very important that the planning system listens to local people and that proper processes are followed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will work very hard in this case to make sure that that happens.

Tom Watson: The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad. The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises a very difficult and complex case, and I am not entirely sure which former Prime Minister he is referring to. What I would like to do is look carefully in Hansard at the allegations he has made and the case he has raised, and look carefully at what the Government can do to help give him the assurances he seeks.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In principle, does my right hon. Friend think that statutory regulation can ever be compatible with a free press?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is tempting me into commenting on what Lord Leveson might or might not recommend in his report, but having set up the inquiry on an all-party basis, it is important that we allow him to produce his report. What I would say is that I think one can obsess too much about how exactly such things are done, when what matters most of all is whether we have a regulatory system in which the public have confidence that, if mistakes are made, there are proper corrections; that if newspapers do the wrong
	thing, they can be fined; and that when things go wrong, there is proper investigation. That seems to me to be the most important question for us all: are we going to put in place a system in which we have confidence and the public will support, but in which we are seen to have a free, independent and very vigorous press?

Dave Watts: Is the Prime Minister aware that young people’s unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 1,000%? What is he going to do about this scandal?

David Cameron: What we are doing is putting in place, through the Work programme and the youth contract, the biggest ever scheme to help people to get back into work. We have seen success in recent weeks and months, with more people in work than at any time in our history and recent figures showing a decline in the claimant count, a decline in unemployment and a decline in youth unemployment. There is far more to do, but we are at least heading in the right direction.

Michael Crockart: Will the Prime Minister promise today, that unlike other leaders in other Parliaments in the UK, he will never spend £100,000 fighting the release of legal advice that he does not hold and never asked for?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks a baffling question about a truly baffling situation. We were told, I believe, by the First Minister in Scotland that he had legal advice on Scotland’s place in the European Union in the event of independence, but it turns out that he did not have any legal advice at all. What that shows is that when the spotlight is shone on the Scottish National party’s case for separation, it completely falls apart.

Meg Munn: The Prime Minister has rightly expressed concern about child abuse in our institutions, but last year the Government reduced child protection measures in schools, and changes made to Ofsted will result in some schools never being inspected on their child protection procedures. Will the Prime Minister now meet me and cross-party MPs from the all-party child protection group to protect our children now and in the future?

David Cameron: I am very happy to arrange a meeting between the hon. Lady and the new Minister, who has huge experience in this area and who I know will be delighted to discuss it with her. What we have tried to do is simplify a set of rules and regulations that involved 9 million or 10 million more parents in this sort of thing and concentrate on where the focus is needed, but I am happy to arrange that meeting.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Ian Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Prime Minister leaves, on Monday he said that payment by results for probation was such a good idea that he was going to put rocket boosters under it. I am sorry that he is running away, because on Tuesday, Wales Probation wrote to me saying that the Ministry of Justice had—

Mr Speaker: Order. It is always a delight to hear the hon. Gentleman’s mellifluous tones, but on this occasion I will deny myself that pleasure, on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a matter of earnest interest to him and of considerable debate, no doubt, but there is no matter for the Chair here. If he strongly disagrees, he can come and have a cup of tea with me and I will talk to him about it. If I am wrong, I shall concede it, but I do not think I am.

Chris Williamson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether it is appropriate for the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) to book a meeting room on the parliamentary estate for a meeting with a company, Siemens, involved in bidding for a major rail procurement contract—

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the conduct of a Member, there are established methods by which to pursue such complaints, including reference to the commissioner. If he is not convinced of that, he can pursue it at a lower level, but it should not be pursued on the Floor of the House via the device of a point of order. I know his intentions are good, but so are mine in trying to advise him on how to proceed.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister announced that there would be an inquiry into airport capacity in London and the south-east under Howard Davies, and that there would be recommendations from that inquiry in due course, most probably after the next general election. Last week, in reply to a question from the journalist Andrew Neil, the Minister with responsibility for aviation said that the recommendations of that inquiry would be accepted and implemented by the Government. That changes the status of that inquiry from an advisory body to one that will automatically implement policy. Have you received any notice that there will be a ministerial statement about the terms of reference of the inquiry, its status or its revised timetable?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, I accept. It is not, however, a matter for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman is discontented by the change that he has noted, and he feels that he wishes to give further, fuller expression to his concerns, there are ways that will occur to him which might secure him the debating opportunities that I think he seeks.

Unpaid Work Orders (Pilot Scheme)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Glen: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give effect to schedule 6 to the Courts Act 2003; to provide thereby for the imposition of unpaid work orders to pay financial penalties; and for connected purposes.
	I have sat as a magistrate for six years, and I and my colleagues frequently wonder whether, when fines are levied by the court, they will be fully paid off. There are currently 1,680,000 outstanding fines, as of March 2012. They are worth a total of £593 million. Last year a full £106 million was left unpaid and £54 million was spent trying to collect fines. Of course, the courts will always try to secure a full, up-front payment in court, but owing to an inability or unwillingness to pay in full, this does not always happen.
	Various legislation over the past few years has provided several additional ways in which fines can currently be paid off by defendants. For example, the value of the fine can be deducted from any benefits received by the defendant or from any earnings in the same way as PAYE, by the order of a court. But for a number of individuals these conventional options just do not work. This is not so much an issue of lost monies, but more about how to deliver justice to society. Our constituents reasonably expect that justice will be done—that when the courts give out fines and financial penalties, they will be paid promptly by defendants.
	Section 97 and schedule 6 of the Courts Act 2003 provide for the imposition of unpaid work orders, so that fines can be paid off at a designated hourly rate, either in full or in part, though of course court costs and compensation will still be paid to victims. A pilot scheme for unpaid work orders was run between September 2004 and March 2009 in a number of local justice areas across England and Wales, but was not brought in on a permanent basis at the end of that trial. The report on the scheme issued by the Ministry of Justice in September 2010 said that unpaid work orders had “wide support” and could be considered relatively successful, but it warned that the number of defendants that they could apply to would be small, and that there would be “major barriers” to overcome. It recommended that any implementation should be cautious and gradual.
	The political agenda in 2009 and 2010 was very crowded, but the principle underlying the scheme still stands. I think it is time to look again at unpaid work orders as an additional means of compliance with sentences. The number and total of unpaid fines is so large, and the cost of enforcement so significant, that we should try a new means of ensuring that justice is served and fines really are paid, whether through straightforward monetary payment or, when it becomes clear that that is unlikely to happen, through unpaid work that benefits a local community.
	The Bill would provide for another pilot scheme to take place, but with some differences from the first. One problem with the first pilot scheme was that the supervisory role was given solely to the probation service, a stretched organisation that has a heavy burden. The Bill would therefore allow local authorities and charities to share
	the supervisory role. Many charities would be willing to supervise an individual if that meant they could benefit from a number of hours of work that are of real benefit to a local community.
	A second consideration is that the Ministry of Justice’s report suggested that the number of eligible individuals and their commitment levels could vary widely. Surely the emphasis should be on looking at who would be eligible to undertake unpaid work in lieu of a fine, rather than who would not be suitable. The pilot scheme would therefore also take place with an explicit view to the issuing of clear guidance and positive eligibility criteria that would allow unpaid work orders to become a regular option used by the courts to collect financial penalties, especially when magistrates have reason to believe that non-payment is very likely. In practice, that would mean that the time and money spent chasing fines by ordinary means could be turned into productive work in the local community, a principle that the courts already recognise as valuable through the existence of unpaid work as a sentence in itself.
	There are some efficient existing options for fine collection if an individual is unable to pay up front, but magistrates frequently do not have the confidence in means assessments to make realistic predictions about a payment schedule. To my mind, there are two clear cases where unpaid work orders could be a preferable means of payment: first, where the deduction of a fine from benefits would risk serious implications for the well-being of the defendant or their household, or where a deduction from a benefits order request is refused because the benefit cannot statutorily be reduced; and secondly, the small number of cases where the defendants wish to accelerate the payment to preserve their income, especially if they are relying on benefits. That would be a compassionate measure to allow the poorest to pay back their community in kind, rather than by financial payment. It would also safeguard fine defaulters from imprisonment if they were genuinely unable to pay. The measure would align with the
	Government’s stated commitment in “Swift and Sure Justice” to have a greater focus on community-based, restorative justice.
	There will inevitably be objections to these proposals, which I will now seek to deal with briefly. For those concerned about health and safety or how defendants will be supervised, these practical issues can be worked out and overcome in the pilot scheme, with ministerial direction given to draw up guidance and ensure practicality in the long term. The report on the pilot scheme expressed concerns about the level of commitment and the number of defendants that would be suitable for unpaid work orders. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that unpaid work will be a useful solution for individuals who are difficult to trace, but at a time when courts are willing to spend a large amount on enforcement and other costs, such as for translation in court, surely we should be looking for ways to ensure that justice is delivered. The Bill also requires that the pilot scheme takes place specifically with a view to issuing guidance on eligibility, which should give magistrates the confidence and clarity when issuing these orders that they might not have had before.
	These proposals represent a practical, restorative and compassionate means of paying fines. The public—our constituents—expect justice to be done and that fines levied by the courts will be paid by the individuals concerned, either financially or in kind. In my view, £593 million of unpaid fines is too much, and the situation should not be allowed to continue. I commend this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That John Glen, Mr Gary Streeter, Charlie Elphicke, Jeremy Lefroy, Priti Patel, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Aidan Burley, Fiona Bruce, Nick de Bois and Nicola Blackwood present the Bill.
	John Glen accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 November and to be printed (Bill 80).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[7th Allotted Day]

Energy Market Reform

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that annual energy bills have risen by more than £200 since May 2010, with further price rises on the way; calls on the Government to help families and pensioners with their energy bills this winter by requiring energy companies to put all people aged over 75 on their cheapest tariff; and further calls for it to reform the energy market to break the dominance of the Big Six by requiring them to sell power into a pool, and allowing new businesses to enter the market, thereby increasing competition and driving down energy bills for all, and to replace Ofgem with a tough new energy regulator with the power to force energy companies to pass on price cuts when wholesale costs fall.
	Since this Government came to power, energy bills have gone up by more than £200, and last week three of the big energy companies announced another round of price hikes, adding a further £100 to people’s energy bills this winter. People worried about how they will afford to keep the lights on, heat their homes or have a hot meal deserve a Government who understand their challenges and have the ideas to provide the change that Britain needs and the strength to see them through, but all we get from this Government is another shambles from an out-of-touch Prime Minister who seems to make it up as he goes along. From the disgraceful conduct of the former Chief Whip to the incompetence on the west coast main line that has cost taxpayers millions, this is a Government who promised change but instead are delivering chaos.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way so early on in her remarks. Labour was in government for 13 years and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition was Energy Secretary for almost two years. Does she agree that if her party truly thought that Ofgem was ineffective, it should perhaps have done something about it in those 13 years?

Caroline Flint: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did make some changes to Ofgem, but we have given more consideration to this over the past two years and, as I will explain later, we now feel that we need to take a more radical look at it.
	On Tuesday last week, in response to a question from my noble Friend Lord Kennedy, Baroness Verma, a Minister in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, told the other place:
	“What we cannot do, of course, is tell big energy companies what prices they should set.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2012; Vol. 739, c. 1368.]
	On Wednesday, though, the Prime Minister directly contradicted her when he said:
	“we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 316.]
	By Wednesday evening, a spokesman for the Department had told the Financial Times that energy companies would not in fact be forced automatically to put all customers on cheaper tariffs. By Thursday morning, the
	Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), was reduced to taking the ridiculous line that the Government did still want to use legislation to get people lower tariffs but could not explain how they were going to do it.
	All the while, the Secretary of State, the man responsible for this country’s energy policy, had gone AWOL, leaving an empty chair on “Newsnight”, refusing to answer questions from the media, and sending his deputy to answer my urgent question. The Minister put in a valiant performance of which he should be proud; those of us who were there could say that it was parliamentary comedy gold. However, what did we actually learn from last week’s urgent question? We learned, in the words of the Minister, that
	“DECC has a wonderful relationship with…the Treasury and No. 10”
	which
	“has improved since my arrival.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 493.]
	Despite that wonderful relationship, we also learned that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is not told about announcements on energy policy until after they are made. We learned that one of the options being considered is a change to the law to require the energy companies to write to people to tell them what the cheapest deal is, even though the Government already announced that back in April and the Energy Act 2011 already gives the Secretary of State the power to force energy companies to provide information about the lowest tariff.

John Robertson: What kind of relationship does my right hon. Friend think that DECC has with the Treasury? When the Treasury was asked to give evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, it refused to do so. Not only did it not give evidence; it did not inform DECC of the information required.

Caroline Flint: It was a very bad decision by the Treasury to refuse to attend the Committee. We know how important energy policy is for DECC, but it is also a cross-cutting issue for Government. Decisions and influence from the Treasury, and also the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, for that matter, are essential to the perception of how our energy policy is being developed. That decision was a great shame, but I am afraid that it is just another example of a lack of joined-up government, which is to the detriment of such an important policy area.
	We also learned that the Government have been working on the proposals for months and that we should expect them to feature prominently in the forthcoming Energy Bill, but there is no mention of them at all in the draft Bill, the White Paper, the technical updates or the impact assessments. Perhaps the only real thing that we learned last week was that when it comes to energy bills this Government are not just out of touch, but completely clueless.

Marcus Jones: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way shortly; I have taken two interventions already.
	Such is the complete and utter confusion in Government, the Energy Bill has now attained near mythical status. Ministers talk as though it is the answer to every problem and the solution to every ill in Britain’s dysfunctional energy market. The Minister told the House last week that
	“we will use the Energy Bill to get people lower tariffs.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 489.]
	Why is it that the draft Bill, which has been in preparation for two years, contains nothing to reform the way in which energy is bought and sold, or to make the energy market more competitive; nothing to open up the market or open up the books of the energy giants so that we can work out the true cost of energy; nothing on demand reduction to help families and businesses cut their energy use; nothing to protect vulnerable customers or stop everyone else being ripped off; and, whatever the Prime Minister claims, nothing to simplify tariffs or make it easier for people to switch, or anything remotely close to what he promised last week? If the Government are as concerned about energy bills as they claim to be, why does their flagship Energy Bill do absolutely nothing to help people struggling to make ends meet?
	Over the past two years, we have had countless White Papers, consultations, updates and even a draft Bill, but not once have we seen anything that recognises the need for urgent reform, that challenges the prices and practices of the big companies, or that lives up to its name and genuinely reforms the energy market. The House will forgive me if I am a little sceptical of this Government’s sudden conversion to the cause of reforming this market, to make it more competitive, more transparent and fairer for consumers. I am afraid that, on the evidence so far, this is a Government who back business as usual in an energy market that is not working.

Marcus Jones: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. A back to the future-type approach to energy pooling has already been proven to have failed. Will she explain why her party is now pursuing energy pooling so vigorously when the Blair Government with whom she served were opposed to the policy on the basis of the cost to the consumer?

Caroline Flint: We went into the last general election with a manifesto commitment to introduce a pool. That put our cards on the table. According to the Government’s own statistics, 1.7 million people were brought out of poverty during our time in government.

Mark Tami: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is all very well for the Government to have a mythical lowest-tariff policy, until they have a coherent energy policy that ensures security of supply, prices will continue to go up and uncertainty will remain?

Caroline Flint: Security of supply is key, and the Energy Bill has to address that with regard to where we source our energy from and for how much. That is part of the Energy Bill, but what is so disappointing is that none of the matters that the Prime Minister gave such prominence to last week has featured in any of the discussions about the draft Bill.
	People are worried about how they are going to pay their bills this winter and are sick and tired of this ridiculous soap opera in Government. This time last year the Government promised action at their infamous energy summit. What was the result? It was a campaign telling people to click, switch and insulate to save. It is fair to say that, one year on, the time has come to review that. When it comes to clicking and switching, the Government’s campaign has been an abject failure. Information that I have obtained through parliamentary questions reveals that the number of people switching energy supplier has fallen to the lowest level on record. In the quarter before the energy summit, nearly 1.2 million people switched electricity supplier and nearly 1 million more switched gas supplier, but in the quarter after the energy summit, fewer than 750,000 people switched electricity supplier and only 0.5 million switched gas supplier.
	How have the Government got on in the other area that they are keen to promote: insulating to save? Labour’s Warm Front grants helped more than 2 million households, which means that, on average, more than 200,000 people were helped each and every year. Last year, however, according to more information obtained through parliamentary questions, just 43,585 households received help from the Warm Front scheme. That is down 80% compared with our last year in government. To add insult to injury, nearly 30,000 applications for help were turned down by the Government, even though the Warm Front budget underspent by more than £50 million.

Meg Hillier: Does my right hon. Friend not feel that this is a bit like groundhog day? When prices went up a year ago, the Secretary of State had meetings with energy companies and there was a lot of sound and fury promising action, but nothing happened, because this Government do not care about the pound in the pocket of constituents in my constituency and elsewhere, and are fiddling while the energy companies keep putting their prices up.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She was the shadow Secretary of State before me and I pay credit to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who was part of her team. Ever since the general election, the shadow DECC team has been pointing out concerns about rising prices. This is not new and each year there is some stunt telling us that things will get better, but I am afraid that they are not getting better at all.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Caroline Flint: I want to make more progress.
	When this House last debated energy efficiency in May, I used information that I had once again obtained through parliamentary questions to warn that the energy companies were on course to miss their targets. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), complacently told the House that
	“we fully expect them to deliver their obligations and we will make sure that they do.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 554.]
	Now, with the schemes due to end in less than 10 weeks, Ofgem is warning that the companies will not meet their targets, and families across the country will miss out and be left facing a cold winter with poorly insulated homes. Why have the Government failed to get a grip on this situation? Why have they failed to tackle the energy companies’ lack of activity and joined-up activity with local people to deliver? We have 10 weeks left and it looks like we are not going to meet the targets that the Minister said we would in May.
	We should not worry, however, because we are told that everything will be okay as a result of the green deal. The Government originally said that this scheme would reach 14 million households by 2020, so why is it that when the scheme was launched earlier this month there were just two registered providers? Why would anyone want to take up the green deal when they will end up paying more in interest rates and charges than for the actual energy efficiency measures? Support on energy company obligations for the fuel poor and low-income households will be cut by half next year, and the end of the Warm Front scheme means that this will be the first Administration since the 1970s not to have a Government-funded energy efficiency programme.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and I inherited in excess of 20% fuel poverty in the north-east when we were elected in Northumberland in May 2010—but I will leave aside the past. Does the right hon. Lady not accept that these plans for, to use her own words, more competitiveness, more transparency and a fairer way forward are, at the very least, a step in the right direction?

Caroline Flint: We are going to make three propositions today that we think will help boost the market and make it more competitive, and I look forward to receiving support from the Government’s Front-Bench representatives. I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised on many occasions the issues faced by his constituents who are off-grid. Part of our proposals for a new energy watchdog is to bring those who are off-grid back under the arrangements that everybody else benefits from by being under one regulator. That is one of the ways in which we would reform Ofgem.
	We want to help people do the right thing. We believe that, even in opposition, we can help people make their homes more efficient and find the cheapest deal, which is why we have launched our own collective switching campaign, “Switch Together”. When it comes to it, that is the big difference between us and the Government. They think that the public are to blame, because when they tell people to shop around, what they are actually saying is, “It’s down to you. You’re on your own.” We do not think that the public are to blame for rocketing energy prices. The problem is the way in which our energy market works.
	Let us look, therefore, at the dominance of the big six energy companies, which between them supply about 99% of the homes in Britain. By itself, that does not necessarily mean that competition in the market is ineffective. However, the fact that no new entrant has achieved anything like the scale of operations that would challenge the big six shows that there are barriers for newcomers in trying to break in.
	Secondly, let us look at the market shares of the big six energy companies in their former monopoly areas, which T he Independent on Sunday exposed using information that I obtained through parliamentary questions. Privatisation was meant to lead to greater competition and a better deal for consumers, but in every part of the country, the company that used to run the regional electricity board still has a stranglehold over the market.
	Thirdly, energy companies like to tell us that electricity and gas prices in the UK are among the lowest in Europe. However, when tax is taken out of the equation, which is an instrument of Government policy, not an indication of market efficiency, electricity and gas prices in the UK are among the highest in Europe, not the lowest. Tax on energy is lower than that on most goods only because Labour defeated the last Tory Government’s plans to increase the VAT on domestic fuel in 1994.
	Fourthly—this is perhaps the most damning point of all—whenever the energy companies announce their latest round of price hikes, they tell us that they are only passing on their costs. However, if pricing is competitive and the market is functioning properly, falls in the wholesale cost should be passed on as quickly as increases. So why is it that when prices rise, bills go up like a rocket, but when prices come down, they fall like a feather, if at all? The only reason for that is that the market is not functioning in a proper, competitive way.
	Of course the energy companies dispute that, but in 2011, Ofgem found evidence that energy suppliers were slower in passing on reductions in wholesale energy costs than in passing on increases. Its report stated:
	“We have found some evidence that customer energy bills respond more rapidly to rising supplier costs compared with falling costs.”
	That is what Consumer Focus thinks too. It found a gap between the price at which energy companies buy electricity and gas, and what they sell them to the public for. Its research shows that even though the wholesale prices for both electricity and gas have fallen since 2008, retail prices for both are significantly higher today than four years ago.

David Mowat: I was particularly interested in the point that the shadow Secretary of State made about the relative prices here and in Europe. I have in front of me information from the EU website which shows that we have the 26th lowest gas prices in Europe. I take her point that that is to do with tax, but our gas is 60% cheaper than gas in France or Germany. If our companies are operating a cartel, it would seem that they are not very good at it.

Caroline Flint: I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. The energy companies and parliamentary colleagues often say that our prices are among the cheapest in Europe, but the truth is that when tax is taken off, we are not among the cheapest in Europe. In fact, in some areas, our prices are considerably higher.

Alex Cunningham: GoWarm, a community interest company, and Stockton-on-Tees borough council have developed an innovative and effective programme to externally insulate hundreds of homes, which gives people in the poorest households in my
	constituency a better deal from their energy bills. That could be done for even more homes if it was not for the fact that BT would charge them an absolute fortune to refix bolts to the sides of their properties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another large utility that needs to be brought to book?

Caroline Flint: That is another bit of casework to look into. The obstructions to energy plans are numerous. At our party conference, we launched the “Power Book”, which is a collection of ideas and articles on ways to decentralise energy through energy generation and energy efficiency. It looks at ways in which community groups can be supported, rather than hindered, in doing the right thing. In many ways, that could be far more cost-effective.

Simon Hughes: When I did the right hon. Lady’s job at the end of the last Parliament and shadowed the current leader of the Labour party, who was then the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I tried to get Labour and Ofgem to reduce the number of tariffs from a ridiculous number to a small number. That was not done. Secondly, I tried to get them to legislate to persuade Ofgem that there should be an obligation to reduce the price to the consumer when the wholesale price went down, and not to leave it for six, nine or twelve months. None of those things was delivered. I welcome the conversion, but does the right hon. Lady not recognise that it has come several years later than it could have done?

Caroline Flint: On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I look forward to our being in the same Lobby for the vote. Our proposals would tackle some of the issues that gradual reform has not tackled. The energy market has changed a lot since it has been privatised. Efforts were made to enable Ofgem to be stronger, but on the evidence of the past few years, it has not been. That is why we believe that our proposals, which are now on the stocks, are the best ones to take us towards a market that is more competitive and more use to consumers.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Caroline Flint: I will come to Ofgem a little later in my speech, and I will give way to the Secretary of State.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady has said quite a few times that the energy market has changed. Will she confirm that in 1998 there were 14 of the original 15 incumbent energy suppliers, but that by the time Labour had finished, that had gone down to six? That is a consolidation in the energy market, does she not agree?

Caroline Flint: That is exactly why this needs to be tackled. [ Laughter. ] No, this is being grown-up. I will repeat what I said earlier. I hope that the Secretary of State heard me. I do not know what commitments the Liberal Democrats made in their manifesto, but the manifesto that was written by the current leader of the Labour party before the last election said that we needed to reform the energy market more radically.
	That is why we have said that we need to have a pool into which all the energy would be put to open up the market. We were very clear about that.
	When Ofgem, as the independent authority, took away some of the price caps, it was meant to be on the basis that the market was mature and competitive enough to be able to deliver the consumer choice and competition that were needed. That did not happen and the number of companies reduced. As I said earlier, when we look at the situation regionally, rather than just nationally, we see that it is not only about the big six—in some areas, there is just the big one.
	As I said, it was our manifesto commitment radically to reform the market and we have been saying every single day since that we need to do more. Unfortunately, the Government have not been open to that discussion. I hope that that will change when we debate the Energy Bill in a few weeks’ time. We have propositions in today’s motion that, having listened to the comments today, I hope will get support from a number of quarters, and not only from our own Back Benchers.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Caroline Flint: I have allowed a lot of interventions. The Secretary of State is asking me to give way, and I think that I should give way to him.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady is right that there has not been enough competition in the generating side of the market. I will speak at length about competition in both the retail and wholesale markets. The real issue between us is whether we should get extra competition in the generating side of the market through pooling, as she proposes, or by addressing the lack of liquidity in forward markets, which we believe to be the real problem. Does she want to compare and contrast her approach with ours?

Caroline Flint: There are a number of measures that we should be taking to tackle liquidity. Pooling is just one of them. No doubt there will be more detail on this matter and amendments when we have the Energy Bill before us. The issue is that there has so far been nothing in the draft Bill that has opened up that debate. After the Prime Minister’s intervention last week, it seems that we will now have a debate that he did not realise would be forthcoming.
	I will make some progress, because we only have a half day on this issue and colleagues from across the House want to speak. We had a shambles last week. We can only imagine that civil servants in the Department of Energy and Climate Change are now busily rewriting the Energy Bill. If they are, we would like to put forward three clear proposals that could help people now and reform the energy market for the long term.
	First, there is a proposal on which we think there could be action for this winter if there were unity, but on which we might need to legislate somewhere down the road. It is about targeting help where it is needed most this winter, not next year once the Energy Bill is passed, and not when Ofgem finishes the consultation on its retail market review in 2013. We all know that something like 75% to 80% of people are not on the cheapest tariff. Ministers say that it is possible for households to save up to £200 on an annual dual fuel bill by shopping around for the lowest online rate, but
	elderly customers, who are most vulnerable to the cold weather and most at risk of fuel poverty, are among the least likely to be able to access the cheapest online deals or switch supplier.
	In January, we proposed putting all over-75s on the cheapest gas and electricity tariff, which would save as many as 4 million pensioners, including 8,000 in the Secretary of State’s constituency, as much as £200 a year. The Government rejected our proposals, but given what the Prime Minister said last week, their position now appears to have changed somewhat. If it genuinely has, can we come together today and send this clear message to the energy companies: “If you don’t put the over-75s on the cheapest tariff, we will legislate to make you”? That is our first proposal—getting help to those who need it most.
	We also want everyone to benefit from a more competitive and responsible energy market, which means wholesale reform to how energy is bought and sold, so here is our second proposal. At the moment, no one really knows what the true cost of energy is. The way the market is structured means that the big energy companies are allowed to generate power, buy it from themselves and sell it on to the public. We believe that has to end. The time has come to open up the energy giants’ books, stop the backroom deals and end the secret contracts. If the energy companies were forced to sell the power that they generate into an open and transparent pool, anyone could bid to retail energy. That would encourage new entrants, increase competition and ease the upward pressure on prices.

Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change discussed vertical integration, one energy company chief executive was asked why a company such as EDF, which generates most of its electricity from nuclear power, should benefit from the high price of gas, which sets the market rate for the sale of the wholesale supply into the retail market. The answer, of course, was that Ofgem would not allow cross-subsidising from one side of that barrier to the other. Is that not why the tough new regulatory powers that we have called for are exactly what the Secretary of State should introduce?

Caroline Flint: I absolutely agree, and I commend the Select Committee for its fantastic work over the past year. Since I have been in my post, it has been most useful to my discussions and thoughts about how policy should develop.
	Thirdly—this takes me on to Ofgem’s role—I am afraid that too often in the past, Ofgem has ducked the opportunity to get tough with the energy giants. I believe that we therefore need to create a tough new regulator that people can trust. I can tell the House that we seriously considered whether it would be better to reform Ofgem or start again from scratch. In the end, I do not believe that just giving Ofgem new powers is the answer, because it is not using the powers that it already has. It has failed to enforce its own rules, and time after time it has let the energy companies get away with ripping off hard-pressed families and pensioners.
	As I said earlier, when Ofgem removed price controls a decade ago, it did so in the belief that competition had developed sufficiently, and that privatisation had delivered
	a functioning competitive market. It is now clear that that was a mistake. Almost every indicator, such as consumer engagement and market share pricing, gives us cause for concern. The answer is not to go back to nationalisation but to reform the energy market to make it more open, transparent and competitive. Until that happens, we must ensure that the regulator has the power and authority that it needs to protect consumers.
	That was why, at the Labour party conference, I announced that the next Labour Government would abolish Ofgem and create a tough new regulator with a statutory duty to monitor the relationship between the prices that energy companies pay for their energy and the bills that the public pay. It would have the power to force companies to pass on price cuts when wholesale costs fall. It would be a new watchdog with new powers, new responsibilities—including for small businesses and off-grid customers—a new focus and new leadership.

Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman already. I am sure he will want to make a speech, and I will be very interested to hear any other policy ideas.
	The Government promised change, but nothing is changing. Energy bills are up by more than £200 on their watch and fewer people than ever are engaging with the energy market, which is untransparent, uncompetitive and unfair. People need real help now and a more responsible energy market for the future, which is simpler, works in the public interest and protects the most vulnerable. Real action, not warm words—that is Labour’s promise, as shown in today’s motion, which I really do commend to Members of all parties.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Given the intense interest in participating in this debate, I have imposed an eight-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution.

Edward Davey: There is, I hope, at least one thing that unites the House today: we all want to help people struggling with high gas and electricity bills. When times are tough, as they are now, and when salaries are not going up yet prices of many essential things are, the last thing that people need is higher energy bills. We have heard the same worry in debates on the cost of petrol and diesel, for very similar reasons. When the price of oil and gas on world markets goes up, that pressure can feed through, and not just in the UK. The challenge to many Governments around the world is how to react to that and how they can insulate their people and their economy from fossil fuel price hikes. I therefore welcome the debate, which enables the House to test out the Government’s policies and the Opposition’s ideas.
	I will set out the Government’s policies on how we believe we can best help people and businesses facing higher bills. Our position is based on a combination of ever tougher competition and ever more ambitious efforts to save energy. I wish to spend some time talking about that competition today.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so early in his contribution. We face the start of a cold snap at the end of this week, and it seems that we are getting into the cold spell of the year. Will he consider, if not legislating immediately, at least calling in the big six and the other energy providers to encourage them, instruct them and demand that they provide the lowest-cost tariff to the over-75s? We know that the older someone is, the more vulnerable they will be to cold snaps this winter, not just next winter.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that two or three months into my time as Secretary of State, I secured a voluntary agreement with the big six. I negotiated it and the Deputy Prime Minister announced it in April. The agreement was clear, and the big six are delivering on the promise that they made to us, namely that they will inform people of the lowest tariff available to them. That was part of a range of policies that we have agreed with them. For example, there is the warm home discount, which is often forgotten in this debate. We legislated for that discount to ensure that £130 will go straight off the bills of the poorest pensioners and the poorest people in our society next year. That will get money to the people who really need it and help them with their energy bills.

Caroline Flint: The Secretary of State may not be aware of this, but I understand that research by Which?indicated that there was some confusion about whether energy companies were informing customers of the cheapest deal when they wrote to them.
	The point about the over-75s is that a lot of them are not online. If they ring up their energy company and say, “I would like to go on to that online deal”, the company will say that they cannot do it in that way. We say that not being online should not be a barrier to that group of people getting access to the cheapest deal.

Edward Davey: I could not agree more. We want to ensure that all people can access the best deal, whether or not they are online. That is why we have made the voluntary agreement and why we will take powers in the forthcoming Energy Bill to ensure that the energy companies have to inform people of the best deal. As I will set out in my speech, we want to enable the poorest people in our society to get the help that they need, whether about switching, competition or energy insulation.

Frank Field: Every poorer person will be pleased with the subsidy that other consumers are paying for, but probably 75% of them are paying way beyond what they need to pay. It is great for people to have a subsidy, but that subsidy may, and probably will, be wiped out by the price that those companies charge. There is a redistribution—quite rightly—from those of us who are better off to those who are less well off, but the money goes not towards extra fuel for our poorest constituents, but into the coffers of the companies. Surely there needs to be a combination with the current subsidy. I would go slightly further than my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and ask why the scheme should not be extended to the 4 million people who are eligible for cold weather payments, which we know is the most vulnerable group.

Edward Davey: One thing I agreed during my negotiations with the big six earlier this year, ahead of this winter, was that those who receive a reduction in their bill through the warm home discount should also receive the most attention from energy suppliers to help them get the best available tariff. Those people were the priority then and they are the priority now.
	What I find slightly odd about Labour’s position, is that they seem to be worried only about the over-75s. What about everyone else facing high energy bills? What about families who are struggling with those bills? The Government’s policies will address everybody.

Alan Reid: rose —

Edward Davey: I want to make some progress and I will come to my hon. Friend in a moment.
	The Government’s policies combine competition and energy saving, and are designed to drive a wedge between rising world energy prices and the actual energy bills that people in Britain end up paying—decoupling bills from prices. If tougher competition in the UK energy market can take the sting out of rising global prices, and if we can help people to use less energy, we can cushion families and firms.
	In many ways, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said similar things. She talked about competition and markets, and it was music to my ears. Where we differ, however, is in the detail, and in particular on how to generate the extra competition that she spoke eloquently about.

Gavin Shuker: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will make some progress and give way later.
	When we consider competition in energy markets we must first separate the retail side from the wholesale side—or, in English, competition between firms that sell us energy and firms that generate it. There are, of course, many firms that are on both sides of that equation, just as there are policies to help on both sides.
	Let me start with the suppliers, the retailers, the people to whom we pay our bills. We can drive competition in that area in two ways: by making the existing bigger players compete harder to keep their customers, and by enabling more firms to enter the market and grow—something on which the right hon. for Don Valley is rightly keen. Switching has, of course, been the principal way to do both those things, which is what happened by letting customers choose their supplier and forcing energy firms to offer better deals to hold on to customers. As the right hon. Lady rightly said, however, that system has not been working well, and switching has not helped the vast majority of people. In fact, it seems that switching rates have been falling just as prices have been rising. That bizarre finding seems to be the result of the virtual end of door-to-door selling which, as many of us know from our constituencies, was fraught with problems. Switching rates appear to have fallen in recent years, and those who continue to switch tend to be the internet savvy and often the more well-heeled, leaving the less well-heeled and internet savvy out in the cold when it comes to getting the best deals. In essence, it is a very unsatisfactory situation.
	The policy question is about whether we can promote competition through switching in other ways, or whether switching is simply not the way to go. I am delighted because it seems from the right hon. Lady’s speech that the Opposition have not given up on switching, and in fact they seem to be copying some of the policies that I first articulated. Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I take that as a vote of confidence. For Members who may have missed that neat trick from the Labour Front Benches let me explain. The right hon. Lady talked about her commitment to collective switching, and she mentioned Labour’s “Switch Together” scheme. The Government support collective switching because we talked about it first. The right hon. Lady knows that the Labour party could have pushed that idea when in government, but it did not, and it was this coalition Government who got it.
	When I was the Minister responsible for consumer affairs in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I pushed the general notion of rekindling the spirit of co-operatives into different retail markets, and, in league with Co-operatives UK, I set up a competition to stimulate new ways for communities to buy things together. From that work, energy co-operatives emerged as among the most promising. That is because gas and electricity are pretty similar commodities, wherever and however people buy them, and because people are increasingly worried about their bills. However—this is crucial—many people find it too difficult to switch by themselves, and I have been addressing that problem. I have talked to a range of people about the barriers to collective switching, and I have got people—including Ofgem, the large energy companies or firms, and organisations capable of managing a collective switch—round the table where we have made real progress.
	Regulatory barriers are coming down. Last week, we announced a nationwide competition, in which the winners, whether councils, community groups or others, will get seedcorn cash to help them get going. That national competition—not a Labour party competition—is called Cheaper Energy Together and should provide a boost to awareness and learning that could transform switching in the UK, not least because winning bids must show how they would involve the fuel poor in their schemes. If we are to see a revolution in switching, with collective switching, I will insist that the most vulnerable are part of that.
	It must be slightly embarrassing for Labour Members to know that when they were in government, they did not use the collective principle to help people. It must be embarrassing because, although the current Government are using the collective principle to tackle fuel poverty, the Labour party did not. I am, however, genuinely delighted that the Opposition have overcome their embarrassment, and taken up our idea.

Caroline Flint: rose —

Edward Davey: I will give way to the right hon. Lady who can tell the House about the Labour party’s scheme, following that of the Government.

Caroline Flint: The Labour party was the first political party in British history to organise a collective switch, and we are proud of that. I am not sure what the Liberal Democrats might do—it might be switch apart rather than switch together.
	Switching is important, but in truth, even if people are on the cheapest deal, it does not mean they are getting value for money and a fair price. That is why we must reform the way the energy market works, and tackle the dominance by certain companies that both generate and retail energy, and do not let others get a look in.

Edward Davey: I will come to that point, but I remind the right hon. Lady of what I said earlier. Under her party’s watch, the number of companies went down from 14 to six, so we will not listen to her too much.
	Let me finish my point about switching and say why it is so important. Collective switching got going in Belgium just a few years ago, and we have now seen live, successful switches in the UK. The Consumers Association, Which?, led the way with its big switch earlier this year. It helped around 37,000 people to switch and get an average saving of £223. We have also seen smaller collective switches. Last month, South Lakeland district council was the first local authority to run a switch. Nearly 1,700 residents signed up, and early indications suggest savings that range between £60 and more than £200.
	Yesterday, Oldham borough council launched its collective switch, which I attended. I did not see the right hon. Lady; perhaps she was there at a different time. That collective switch is called “Power to the people”—Citizen Smith would be proud. A wide variety of schemes are coming forward. I am already aware of eight, perhaps the most ambitious of which is Cornwall Together, in which the council, the NHS, the trade union Unison, the third sector, and St Austell brewery have come together to organise a collective switch.
	Collective switching is not a silver bullet or panacea, but people are seeing how it can be part of the answer and reform the way switching works. Switching does not just force existing firms to compete more vigorously to keep customers, it enables smaller suppliers to grow their customer base faster. We know that customer inertia can be a barrier to competition, preventing new companies from getting market share, and collective switching reduces that barrier for small companies. Co-operative Energy won the big switch organised by Which?, and doubled its customer base overnight. Collective switching has the potential to be part of the way that we reshape the market.

Tom Clarke: I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on community involvement and the role of local councils. Many years ago, I wrote to all six energy companies to seek their support. Some were aggressive in their replies, not least Scottish Power. Only one—Scottish and Southern—wished to participate in such a scheme. What is the Secretary of State’s experience of energy companies’ reactions to the important role he mentioned?

Edward Davey: I am disappointed that the companies did not respond more positively when the right hon. Gentleman wrote to them. I do not know whether he wrote to them under the Labour Government. The voluntary agreement that we managed to secure after two months in office included a commitment from the energy companies to take part in collective switching proposals. A number of the big six took part in the Which? big switch, so we have moved them and we are changing things.
	A key barrier to collective switching and ordinary switching is individual bill payers getting their details to the third party organising the switch, the switching website or the new supplier. In principle, that should not be too difficult, but the evidence we have found is that it is. We have therefore started to tackle the problem. In the voluntary agreement I negotiated, the companies agreed to put quick response codes on their bills. “What,” hon. Members may ask, “is a QR code?” It is a bit like a bar code, but smarter. The QR code should make it much easier for people to provide the energy bill details needed for switching, reducing the effort people must make. I can announce to the House that we will be consulting on that and a number of other measures when we introduce our consultation on consumer bills.
	The Government have gone further to reduce the hassle of switching. In another consumer project I worked on at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—it was called midata—we looked at other ways in which an energy company could provide the customer with the customer’s data, for example, in easy-to-use or easy-to-pass-on electronic formats. BIS is now consulting on making the midata ideas a statutory requirement. Coupled with the work of Ofgem on simpler bills, that could be a huge catalyst for helping many more people to switch.

Caroline Flint: An energy Bill is imminent. We have had pre-legislative scrutiny, white papers and impact assessment. Has it only just occurred to Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers, including the Secretary of State, who took over at the beginning of this year, that they should consult in the run-up to a Bill that will be before the House in the next few weeks? Labour did a lot in government: 1.7 million fewer people were in fuel poverty when it left government.

Edward Davey: Unlike the right hon. Lady, this Government respect an independent regulator. Ofgem has been conducting its retail market review. It would have been completely inappropriate for the Government to publish a consultation before the independent regulator completed its work. She ought to know that. We have been waiting for the report and got it just last week. As a result of receiving that work, we will take forward our consultation, which will enable us to introduce new legislation in the Energy Bill.

Simon Hughes: My right hon. Friend is right that it would have been nonsense not to wait for the review to finish before considering what to do, but given that it is also absolute nonsense to propose abolishing a regulator, only to create a new regulator to do a similar sort of job—namely, regulating the energy industry—will he take the much more sensible option of being open to suggestions from wherever they might come as to ways in which we might toughen the role of the current regulator to make it much more responsive to the needs of our constituents?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Government will do just that.
	I pay tribute to Ofgem’s work on simpler bills—the retail market review it published last week is an excellent piece of work. I was disappointed that the right hon.
	Lady did not welcome it. That might be something to do with her policy of abolishing Ofgem, which I should like briefly to turn to as my right hon. Friend has raised the matter. We want to understand why the right hon. Lady believes that abolishing one regulator and replacing it with another will make any difference whatever. That is a recipe for delay and chaos and for letting the energy companies get away with it while the Opposition mess around moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.
	The right hon. Lady said that the previous Government looked at whether reforming the regulator would be better than creating a new one. She gave no good reason why we could not reform Ofgem, which is what this Government will do. It is interesting that she wants to spend time rebranding public bodies. I do not know whether she believes that is a good use of taxpayers’ money, but, interestingly, her proposal is rather disloyal to the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure she is aware that he legislated on Ofgem when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Just two and a half years ago, he told the House that the purpose of his Energy Act 2010 was
	“precisely to strengthen Ofgem's powers in a number of respects and to make it a more proactive regulator”—[Official Report, 7 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 254.]
	Will the right hon. Lady come to the Dispatch Box to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition got it wrong just two and a half years ago?

Caroline Flint: The truth is that despite the powers extended to Ofgem, it is just not delivering. Four years ago, it found that some customers were charged different prices for using the same amount of energy, but energy companies are still using predatory pricing tactics. In 2008, Ofgem launched reforms aimed at supporting consumers, but according to its own evaluation in 2011, the reforms failed. In August 2011, Ofgem commissioned BDO to undertake a forensic investigation of how to improve transparency in the market, but by May 2012, Ofgem had quietly dropped six of the eight BDO recommendations and varied the remaining two. It is not delivering; it is not doing its job.

Edward Davey: I am extremely disappointed that that is the position the right hon. Lady has arrived at. The retail market review last week proposed to reduce and limit the number of tariffs from the massive number that exist at the moment to just four core tariffs. As my right hon. Friend reminded us, he asked the Labour Government to do that just a few years ago, but they did not. Ofgem has acted where the Labour Government did not. It will help to tackle the complexity of multiple tariffs, which have not helped transparency or competition. I am delighted that its plans allow collective switch tariffs to emerge in addition to the core tariffs. I am surprised that she wants to abolish a body that, under this Government, is taking the action that the previous Government failed to take.

Gloria De Piero: I have a very simple question for the right hon. Gentleman. Will the Government require energy companies to put all over-75s on the cheapest tariff, which is important in the run-up to Christmas?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, not least because I was born in her constituency. The Government want to help everybody. I am surprised
	that she is focusing simply on over-75s. We are acting on over-75s and on all poorer pensioners, because the warm home discount will get £130 off their bills this year. We are taking action.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will not.
	I have spent some time on competition in the retail energy markets, but the right hon. Lady spoke a lot about competition in the generating markets, to which I should like to turn. She made a great deal of wanting to reintroduce a pool to the UK and said it was in the Labour party’s manifesto. She did not really explain why, having abolished the pool in the UK in 2001, Labour wanted to re-introduce it. The Labour Energy and Competitiveness in Europe Minister at the time of pool abolition—she now the noble Baroness Liddell—told the House:
	“There is no question but that the electricity pool has distorted the market”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1102.]
	When the NAO reported on the old pool in 2003, it said that the
	“the centralised arrangements of the pool carried with them a risk that some generators could manipulate the market and Ofgem consider that this risk materialised through much of the period of the Pool’s operation to the detriment of consumer interests.”
	Indeed, many at the time believed that the pool was leading to higher and not lower energy bills. That is why the Government are not convinced by the Opposition’s policy.

Alan Whitehead: rose—

Edward Davey: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

Alan Whitehead: Is the Secretary of State aware of how many generators there were at the time of the abolition of the pool compared with the number of retailers, and does he think those circumstances have been replicated today? It would help the debate, if he could provide some numbers.

Edward Davey: I have already. I explained how the number of companies fell under Labour. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] There were two: PowerGen and National Power. Yes, I do know. And there are more generators now, so going back to the pool, when there were fewer generators, would be a bit odd.

Ian Swales: Does the Secretary of State think that the previous Government’s abolition of the public interest test on takeovers was one reason for the consolidation of the energy market?

Edward Davey: As a former competition Minister, I know that commenting on such things is extremely tricky, so I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	I want to focus on how we can tackle the real problems in the energy market. I think we all agree that there is a problem with competition. When we compare the UK market to overseas markets, a key observation is that
	our markets are less liquid, especially the forward market. To get a good, competitive energy market, firms should be buying and selling electricity three, six, 12 or more months in advance. If they were, and if we had greater market liquidity, it would be much easier for independent generators to enter the market and invest in generating plant confident that they can buy and sell electricity and manage their risks.
	Faced with the might of large, vertically integrated energy companies supplying their own power, independent generators find it difficult to enter the market. I think we agree on that. The question is: how do we deal with that? The problem is with liquidity, not the pool. The right hon. Member for Don Valley, who clearly dislikes Ofgem, has not noticed that by threatening to take action Ofgem has, to some extent, already made progress on liquidity. As we have seen, large volumes are now being traded in the day-ahead market, which has improved price transparency. That is a good start.

Caroline Flint: One company.

Edward Davey: No, there is more than one company, as I think the right hon. Lady will find when she checks.
	Ofgem and my Department agree that Ofgem’s voluntary measures do not go far enough, so the latter has been working on a mandatory auction, and it might well be that some sort of trading obligation is the way forward. I can confirm that I have been considering this matter intensively for some time, and that I will bring forward measures in the Bill to address it. At the very least, these will be back-stop powers in case the efforts of industry and the regulator prove insufficient. If we are to drive competition in the generating side of the electricity market to help people and firms struggling with bills, we must address the liquidity problem. The right hon. Lady’s policy does not do that, but ours does.

Barry Gardiner: I agree that it is important to free up liquidity in the forward market—I do not think there is any dispute about that—and, in so far as that goes, it is welcome. However, it will not address the problem of a generator such as Centrica making a £1.5 billion profit while the retail prices of British Gas rise, because it will not be possible to see that integration—it can show its profits where it likes. The Secretary of State talked about integration of the retail and wholesale market. He has to address that, otherwise we will not resolve this problem.

Edward Davey: The only way to ensure greater transparency is to have more liquid markets. That is the whole point of liquid markets. Without them, people cannot compete or buy and sell their electricity forward, and we cannot ensure price transparency. That ought to be welcomed by the Labour party. I would be worried if they set their face against greater liquidity in the forward market. It would be a very odd position to take.
	I have spent some time explaining how our various policies will promote fiercer competition and help cut bills, and I have set out why I think the Opposition’s proposals are fundamentally flawed.

Gavin Shuker: What social obligations does the Secretary of State feel would be appropriate to place on energy companies?

Edward Davey: We put quite a lot of social obligations on them now. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the carbon emissions reduction target scheme is being replaced by the energy company obligation, which will include the affordable warmth target to help people in fuel poverty, and the carbon saving community obligation to help areas in fuel poverty. There will also be measures promoting solid wall insulation and other things needed to take energy efficiency policies forward.

Andrew George: I strongly support all the initiatives that my right hon. Friend is describing, but the energy companies are not addressing all the issues of fuel poverty. Those on the margins of credit still cannot take advantage of direct debit deals, while the falling block tariff also works against their interests, and there are a number of other measures where those companies are not addressing fuel poverty. Does he agree that they could do much more to help those in fuel poverty?

Edward Davey: That is one reason I welcome the retail market review, and we will be consulting on measures and introducing them in the Energy Bill to address those and other matters.
	I want to talk briefly about energy efficiency, although I am conscious of the time. On the social tariffs that the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) talked about, and on energy policy across the board,it is important to see both sides of the equation and understand what we are trying to do with clean energy. By 2020, all the energy and renewable subsidies combined will add £95 to bills, yet those same bills will fall by about £220, thanks to the energy efficiency improvements that our policies are bringing forward. Our green policies are about lower bills, not higher, and we are delivering on that.
	As part of our policy, energy efficiency is a top priority for me, because reducing demand saves consumers money now and reduces future pressure on supply. I will give just two examples, although I am sure that Members across the House could give many more. Installing solid wall insulation saves about £270 a year on the average energy bill, while upgrading an old, G-rated boiler to a modern, A-rated one can save £200 a year. Our flagship green deal scheme will make it easier for home owners and tenants to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, paying for those improvements through savings on their fuel bills. I hope that we will continue to have the Opposition’s support, but I am not always clear where they stand on the green deal.

Caroline Flint: The Deputy Prime Minister suggested in a speech last year that he would tackle the concern about the high interest rates associated with the green deal. It will be about 7%. What progress has been made on bringing it down?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady ought to know that the interest rate will be set by the market, and that this—I say this as a former consumer credit Minister—is actually a great deal. People would not get an unsecured loan of this nature at the interest rates in the green deal. This will be a good deal for people on low incomes, in particular.
	Through the energy company obligation, which will be introduced with the green deal, we will be requiring energy companies to provide an estimated £1.3 billion a year of support for energy efficiency in our homes, including £540 million to fund energy saving improvements to around 230,000 low-income, vulnerable households every year. Whether through reform of the energy market, our proposals on competition or our proposals on energy efficiency, the Government are taking action that will help people with their bills. The right hon. Lady’s motion would do the reverse—her proposals are fundamentally flawed—so I invite my colleagues to join me in the Division Lobby and defeat her motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind hon. Members that an eight-minute limit on speeches has been imposed.

John Robertson: The Secretary of State is very good with a brief in front of him but very poor when he comes before the Select Committee, where he has to answer questions. He beats around the bush and never answers a question, and I congratulate him once again on doing the same thing.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on her motion, although we would probably disagree on a couple of things.
	A month or so ago I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on prepayment meters that would change the amount of debt that customers build up from £200 to £350 and give 200,000 people the opportunity to reduce their debt. Since then, Ofgem has announced that it wants the limit to be increased to £500, taking 400,000 people out of debt. I congratulate Ofgem on not only listening to me but going further than even I had suggested—I cannot have a go at it about that. I also worry about the 68 people it employs in Glasgow and, of course, the 722 staff in London who do the best they can with the rules they are given.
	Ofgem and many other regulators such as Ofcom were introduced at a time when we wanted light regulation. That was a particular request shouted by those on the Opposition Benches while we were in government and we gave them that, but unfortunately times change. We are in a double-dip recession and things are harder. Many people in my constituency worry about whether they will be able to pay their bills this winter. The Secretary of State talked about helping people with energy efficiency, but how can we offer someone who lives in a multi-storey concrete block energy efficiency when they spend the summer cooling down the concrete walls and the winter heating them up? How can they have energy efficiency? They cannot. Those people do not have computers; they cannot switch providers.
	I wrote to the energy companies three weeks ago and asked them to outline how they identify vulnerable people and what they do to try to help them. I have had three replies and three companies—E.ON, EDF and SSE—have not bothered to reply. They might not have quite got round to it or they might have been too busy counting money, but I want to know how they identify vulnerable people and, more importantly, how we can reach those people. No energy company has ever come to me to ask where I think the vulnerable people are in
	my constituency. I think I probably know better than those companies what happens in my constituency, given that I have lived there nearly all my life, yet they will not talk to me about these matters.
	I asked about the cheapest tariffs—perhaps the Secretary of State could try this for his own house. People wanted to talk to me about that—not because I was a member of the public but because I was an MP, so they thought that they should give me some attention—but even they could not tell me the cheapest tariff. If they cannot tell me what the cheapest tariff is, what are they telling people outside this place?
	The Secretary of State talked about four tariffs. If I pay by direct debit, will I get a lower bill? Yes. We have now doubled the four tariffs to eight. If I pay by cheque, will it be cheaper than a payment by standing order? Before we know it, there will be 20 or 30 tariffs rather than four. It is ridiculous, however, that we have 400 tariffs, and I raised that question in my Select Committee when the previous Government were in power.

Michael Weir: Is it not also a problem when we try to compare different tariffs from different companies, as they are not always trying to sell the same thing? We need identical tariffs—perhaps four of them—across the companies because otherwise it is meaningless.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I would go even further. I met Which? this morning and its representatives said that they wanted energy to be like petrol and diesel. We are given a price for petrol and diesel and we know how much we are paying per litre; Which? wants to do the same for units of energy. Different companies can charge different prices. I do not have a problem with companies making a profit, but if they make an obscene profit I expect the next Labour Government to consider a windfall tax. We let these companies run as businesses and we want them to act responsibly, but if they make obscene profits on the backs of people, particularly poor people, I would expect my Government to consider that and to tax them accordingly.
	I have to agree with the Secretary of State on the question of the over-75s. I would bring the minimum age down to the retirement age. As the retirement age is going up, 75 might not be off the mark in a few years’ time, but at the moment it is 67. If I retire, I will be 65, fortunately, so it would be nice if that age limit was 65.
	That takes us back to vulnerable people. There are many single parents and disabled people, and we forget about them at our peril because they sometimes need more help than the elderly. As we move towards becoming the next Labour Government and proposing our own energy Bill, we need to consider these matters as they are very important.
	In Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister was asked about his previous statement on tariffs. As I said earlier, no one really knows what those tariffs are. The Department of Energy and Climate Change told our Select Committee that it could not intervene and that it was down to the companies, but now it says it can intervene.
	The regulator is, unfortunately, very poor at delivering. It is not that it does not want to do the right thing—it does—but the Government set the agenda for Ofgem. If
	the direction is poor and the regulator is not given the power to impose fines—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	If the Secretary of State listened for a second, he might learn something.
	There is an imbalance in how the generating companies spread energy about the country and it seems to be a bit of a rip-off. We pay the companies to shift electricity from one side of the country to another and it costs the taxpayer more than £340 million. It used to cost only £35 million, but it is now closer to £350 million, so why have the Government and Ofgem, who know that that fiddle goes on, not taken any of those companies to court to try to get the money back? I am told that one of the worst areas for that double dealing is the Cheviot hills, which are only about 20 miles from my house.
	If wind farms are part of the problem and are being paid to close down, there is something wrong with our energy policy in this country. We need to look at that. I believe that Ofgem does a reasonable job but could do better and a reorganisation would be the best way forward, as we cannot reinvent the wheel once we have it. The Secretary of State also needs to get on top of his job and portfolio so that he can help people as he is supposed to, rather than engaging in stupid political point scoring from the Dispatch Box.

Marcus Jones: I welcome today’s debate, because energy is one of the most important issues for my constituents. The pressure on the cost of living over the past four or five years has been relentless, with petrol and diesel prices going up almost weekly, food prices going up in the same fashion and energy bills soaring. Over that time, people’s incomes have not increased anywhere near in line with those increased costs and salaries in both the public and private sectors have been pretty much static.
	Despite the rhetoric we have started to hear from the Opposition, the Government have made moves to try to help with the cost of living. We all know that had the Opposition been in power, petrol and diesel would be 10p a litre dearer at the pumps. We all know that the Government have frozen council tax for the third year in succession, in stark contrast to Labour, which doubled council tax during its 13 years in government. My constituents who commute using Nuneaton station will also be heartened that regulated rail fares are to be capped this year.
	Much of the problem with energy prices stems from energy generation issues and the energy market. We all know that the wholesale cost of oil and gas accounts for half the cost of energy. Given Labour’s inertia, inactivity and lack of enthusiasm about energy generation during its 13 years in government, it seems opportunistic for Labour Members to put forward this motion.
	I welcome the fact that the Government are working hard to incentivise low-carbon energy, and I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance about the energy mix and confirm that clean coal will be a firm part of that mix. Many of my constituents work at Daw Mill colliery—one of the largest deep producing coal mines in the country. I am sure that my constituents will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that wholesale electricity prices are based on the wholesale price of gas, but will he explain why a company
	such as EDF, which supplies electricity to its customers yet generates from nuclear, should benefit in exactly the same way from the higher price of gas, which of course it does not pay?

Marcus Jones: The hon. Gentleman’s comments are interesting. I am a firm supporter of nuclear energy—he might not be, but it is absolutely necessary. This Government are trying to incentivise companies to make sure that nuclear is a firm part of the energy mix and that we are not switching off the lights.

Ian Lavery: The hon. Gentleman mentions Daw Mill colliery in his constituency. It faces closure, yet it has thousands of tonnes of reserves—it has one of the biggest reserves in the country. What do the Government intend to do to save those jobs and exploit those reserves?

Marcus Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, as this Government have been helpful and have followed the situation at Daw Mill very carefully to try to help it have a future. I am aware that positive negotiations are going on between the work force, the unions and the company to try to secure its future after many years of poor management, which left the colliery without the necessary work being done on the coal faces to help the company sustain an operation employing 800 workers. There are challenges there, but I am confident that the interested parties can come to a deal. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and me, as constituency MPs, and the Minister responsible for energy have spent a lot of time trying to help.
	Let me move on to discuss another important part of our future energy policy—shale gas. Notwithstanding the environmental impacts and assessments that need to be done, I very much feel that shale gas has a real future. In coming years, it will help to create sufficient energy supplies and contribute to energy security, as well as helping to bring people’s bills down, as it has in the United States.
	The energy market itself is an important matter. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) came up with a gem—or probably what I would call an “off-gem”—when she admitted that Labour had created the problem by reducing the number of energy providers from 15 to six. She now expects the current Government to sort it out, which is quite interesting and seems to be a recurring theme: this Government having to sort out the inadequacies and the mess left by Labour.
	I went on to a price comparison website this morning to find out the position if I chose to move energy suppliers. Under the dual fuel section, I clicked on to E-ON and noticed that I could change to any one of 52 tariffs. For example, there was the E-ON fixed price 5, E-ON fixed two-year Tesco clubcard points, Age UK one-year fixed, not to mention the other 49 different tariffs of different descriptions. There is a real issue of transparency; people need to know what they are signing up to and what else is available to them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Energy Bill, or part of it, will be used to encourage energy suppliers to take responsibility for letting people know the lowest tariff and for trying to move people on to it.
	The cost of living is another important point, and I shall particularly mention the mortgage market. People finish a fixed deal with a mortgage lender and are put on to a standard variable rate, which might not be the best rate, or are not told that a better rate could be achieved. People who do not always look at these things are paying more than they need to. We definitely need to consider this issue across the piece.
	We need to ensure more consumer choice for energy. We have more competition and more transparency in the market. I am heartened by Ofgem’s proposals to pare down all complex, multi-tier tariffs and limit energy companies to a smaller number of core tariffs. I think that will help people better to understand what they are signing up to and what they can go on to. We must also ensure that people know that they are getting value for money. We know all the trouble and hassle that swapping providers can cause; we know that it puts people off, so we need to make it as simple as possible to swap providers.
	In my remaining minutes, I want to highlight consumption as a major issue. We must keep working hard, and I know that the Government are trying to reduce people’s energy consumption. I am sure that the green deal will make it easier for people to make home improvements that reduce their energy consumption. Many people who have worked and are working hard might not have the necessary capital sum available, might not qualify for benefits and might not be able to get other incentives, payments or grants to improve their property, but the green deal will give them the opportunity to help themselves to reduce their bills.
	We need a balanced, open and honest debate on this issue. We need to make sure we do all we can to reduce the cost of living across the piece for all our constituents in these hard-pressed times. What we certainly need to do through this debate—and, I hope, through the Energy Bill—is to put in place a framework that will ensure that we have long-term energy security, enabling our constituents to reduce their bills in the coming years.

Michael Weir: I have no great problem with the motion moved by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I might even vote for it—despite the fact that she would not take any of my interventions. I would, however, like to comment on one aspect. The motion is headed “Energy Market Reform”. In fact, both Front-Bench spokesmen entirely concentrated—apart from one brief mention from the right hon. Lady—on the big six of the electricity and the gas markets. As often happens in these debates, they totally failed to address the problem of those who are off the gas grid. To their credit, this Government brought forward the Office of Fair Trading review of the energy market. To almost universal disbelief, however, it was decided that the market was working fairly.
	The Secretary of State spent a good deal of time talking about competition and how he was going to introduce it; again, this seemed to be focused on the electricity and gas market. However, those who are off the grid have faced some of the highest price rises over the past year. The OFT said that that market was working OK because there were plenty of suppliers in it. I should like to think that that there are plenty of
	suppliers, because many of them are connected with each other, but does that not illustrate the difficulty of dealing with the issue if we rely on competition? Competition has failed in that market, and, indeed, in the bigger market as well.
	There has been much talk about switching. There are several problems with that. For instance, when one of the energy companies puts up its prices, there is a follow-my-leader process: over the next month to two, the rest start to follow suit. People who have switched have found themselves in a worse position, because although the company to which they switched was giving a better deal at first, suddenly it is not a better deal any more.
	The Secretary of State spoke said that the community base must include the fuel-poor. That is true, because they are the only people who will really benefit from switching. When I joined the Which? Campaign, I looked into whether it was worth my while switching. However, I am still using the former monopoly supplier in my area, which was much derided earlier in the debate. When I received the figures from Which?, I concluded that switching would not be worth my while because the savings would be so low, and in view of the hassle that would be involved in switching, I did not bother.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) mentioned his private Member’s Bill, which deals with pre-payment meters. People with pre-payment meters will only make significant savings if they are on a very high tariff. Those of us who have made the effort to reduce consumption and become more energy-efficient also find that it is not worth switching, because we are not using enough energy for it to be worthwhile. The real problem is that energy bills continue to rise, and that hits everyone.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was an excellent member of the previous Energy and Climate Change Committee, although we did not always agree, particularly when nuclear matters were being discussed. Does he agree that those who would save the most money by switching are the ones who do not receive the necessary information, or even have an opportunity to switch?

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are many reasons for that, but one of the most basic is the digital divide. Many people who might otherwise benefit have no access to these deals, because many are online. They find it very difficult to obtain information. Furthermore, they tend not to have bank accounts.
	Let us be honest: the energy companies are not interested in those people. They are the customers who may run up debt, and the energy companies do not generally want to take them on. They make sympathetic noises now and again, but the customers whom they want are people such as the hon. Gentleman and me, who are relatively well off and can pay by direct debt. I presume that the hon. Gentleman pays his bills on time; I would certainly expect him to. Those are the people whom the energy companies are after, and those are the people who are being targeted for the purposes of switching.
	The Secretary of State is right—it will make a great difference if we can get community switching on the go and target the fuel poor—but he will have to change the energy companies’ thinking, and ensure that not just
	the well off but the fuel-poor are taken on board. Unless that happens, community switching will make no difference. However, I do not oppose what the Secretary of State said. It interested me, and I should like to see how it works out.
	Let me return to the issue of off-grid gas, which affects my constituency and, indeed, much of rural Scotland. While 15% of households that are on the gas grid are in fuel poverty, the figure rises to 32% for those that are off grid. The Government should think about ways of getting into that market and doing something about it. In my own private Member’s Bill, I suggested that one way of helping everyone quickly, particularly pensioners, was to bring forward the payment of the winter fuel allowance. My suggestion was never debated, because the Tory Whips objected to it for their own reasons, and the previous Bill was talked out. I have raised the matter time and again in the last Parliament and in this one, and I am still waiting for a member of the past or the present Government to explain why my suggestion cannot be considered or even debated.
	It is not always the huge changes that make a difference; we can make a difference by means of small, incremental changes. They may not be revolutionary, but they will help, and any help during the coming winter will be very welcome to pensioners and those in fuel poverty. Although the great schemes all sound grand, it may be years before any of them actually makes a difference, and people are suffering from fuel poverty now. As a Labour Member pointed out earlier, a cold snap is predicted for the end of this week. Winter is approaching, energy bills are creeping up, and people are worrying about how they will pay them.
	Rather than talk of, for instance, getting rid of Ofgem, we need action. As I have said, small incremental steps can make a difference, but the Secretary of State—the Government—should tell the energy companies that unless they address the problem, there will be stronger action. The Prime Minister promised legislation to put people on to the lowest tariffs, but that seemed to unravel in hours rather than days, and we are still none the wiser about what will be in the Energy Bill. Ofgem’s proposals at least had the benefit of being better thought out, but they too rely on switching and making tariffs simpler. Unless we reach the people who are suffering from fuel poverty and who are at the bottom of the heap as far as the companies are concerned, those changes will make no difference.
	I urge the Secretary of State to speak to his colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, and to consider measures such as bringing forward the winter fuel payments for pensioners off grid. Such small steps will make a difference, and they will make a difference now.

Gordon Birtwistle: The problem is that electricity suppliers buy the fuel that produces the electricity from the world markets. Gas, oil and other fuel supplies are bought on the open market: the gas supplied in Russia, for example, can be sold to the United Kingdom, or indeed to any country, at a price. When the price of gas rises, the end result is that the price of electricity also rises, and the same applies to oil.

Caroline Flint: The price can go down as well.

Gordon Birtwistle: That is true, but my point is that fuel is bought and sold on the open market. We need to ensure that supply of both gas and nuclear fuel in this country is secure for the long term. We do not want to rely on foreign suppliers, because that could bring about a situation similar to that in Chechnya when the Russians turned the gas off.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on security of supply, which is an essential part of the future of the market. He said that the price of gas would go up and down in accordance with the cost of procuring it on the open market. Can he explain why the wholesalers who generate the electricity by means of that gas do not drop their retail prices when wholesale prices have dropped in the international markets?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I remind those who continue to intervene that they will be placed at the bottom of the list rather than the top, because they have already spoken? I am sure that they will want to save something for their speeches.

Gordon Birtwistle: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree with him. Maybe it takes a while for the price of gas to go down. Gas is bought in advance, and gas bought six months hence could be a lot cheaper than that bought now, but the expensive gas might have to be used up before the cheaper gas can be used. I do not know the gas market; I am only trying to make the point that we are in a world market and we buy in those markets.
	As for the idea of pooling—a suggestion made by the Opposition Front-Bench team—who will be the suppliers? We do not know who they are. That is an issue, but the main issue is that we have to be able to understand the tariffs. I do not understand the tariffs. I have been with the same supplier since I signed up many, many years ago. I buy my gas and electricity from British Gas, because it tells me that I am getting the best deal. Every time British Gas changes the tariff, it tells me what the tariff is and assures me that, because I am a loyal customer, I am on the bottom deal. I have never checked: I believe British Gas and I accept what it says, because basically I cannot be bothered to have a look. However, at the end of the day, we have to resolve the issue by ensuring that the people who can be bothered have a chance to do that, if they are able. The collective switching arrangement that has been suggested by the Secretary of State is an extremely good idea—certainly the arrangement is extremely good for Cornwall, where everybody can take advice from a switching consortium, as is the arrangement taken up in Oldham only yesterday. Indeed, the same thing can take place right across the country.
	If I remember rightly, many years ago we had things called co-ops. We used to buy from the co-operative, which had itself made purchases, with discounts given through the system. I remember that my mother’s divvy number was No. 50, and we got a divvy every year from the savings that the co-op had achieved by buying in bulk and selling to the general public.
	In the time I have left, I would like to talk about the real way to save money on electricity: by using less. If people use less, they obviously pay less. I would like to mention a scheme from my constituency of Burnley,
	where well over 15,000 properties got solid-wall insulation from outside cladding. It was done in co-operation with the Government, British Gas and the registered social landlord that owned the properties, a company called Calico. I took great notice of what happened—it was the biggest scheme in the UK, I was told—and I have since followed up and visited quite a number of people who had their properties done. I said to them, “Apart from the house looking a lot better than before—you’ve had the outside cladding done, your roof spaces all clad and all the new boilers fitted—can you tell me whether you have had a substantial change in your electricity bill?” The first gentleman I spoke to said to me, “The house is now so warm that I’ve persuaded my wife to turn the thermostat down, which in itself is a major achievement. I had my loft space insulated and my wife volunteered to turn down the thermostat, because it was now too warm to wear the extra jumper that she was wearing.”
	When I asked people, “So have you found that by turning your thermostat down you have seen a major saving?” the answer every time was “Yes, and a substantial saving.” In one case, the gentleman had taken a note of the savings he had made, which were approaching 30%. No matter what tariff someone is on, no matter where they look for discounts and no matter what allowances are made for certain people, they will never, ever be able to get a 30% discount. The Government could not fund a 30% discount, the companies supplying the electricity could not give a discount of 30% and the tariff changes will never give a 30% discount. I believe that the way forward and the way to save money is to spend money on cavity-wall insulation—the outside stuff: I am not keen on filling the cavity with insulation, because that creates damp—plus everything that goes inside, plus the new high-efficiency boilers. That is why I welcome what happened in Burnley and why I welcome the new green deal, which will enable RSLs to provide such insulation on the properties they rent out, particularly in my constituency. I do not really accept that what is in today’s motion will change things.
	Finally, on Ofgem, I have to say that I am definitely anti-quango. We have far too many quangos. The day we get rid of 90% of the quangos will be the day I can leave this place and say that I have really done something. However, we do not replace a quango that is inefficient with another quango. The way to do it is to get the existing quango to do its job. I hope that the Secretary of State will lean on Ofgem and make it do what it is paid to do and make it deliver to the general public what it is supposed to deliver. If Ofgem is not doing that, we should not change it, but get rid of the people in it who are not performing and replace them with people who will deliver what Ofgem is supposed to deliver.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to have to drop the limit to six minutes to get everybody in. [ Interruption. ] It is no use sighing with great disdain. If Members were a bit more careful and took up less time with interventions, this would not have happened. Let me remind Members: if you want to speak, try not to intervene; and if you do intervene, understand that you will end up at the bottom of the list.

Alan Whitehead: When the Government announced that they were going to introduce electricity market reform and publish a White Paper and a Bill, I was pretty excited, because I thought it would be an opportunity to reform the way the electricity market works—or rather does not work—in delivering choice and providing for entry to the market and price stability, as a result of competition, and how it might do that in future on a low-carbon basis. In truth, however, we see from the electricity market reform Bill that is coming forward that there is no reform of the electricity market. In fact, the Bill that is coming our way ought to be called the “Additions and wheezes to try to make the existing market work rather better, particularly as it refers to lower-carbon energy” Bill, because that is in practice what is happening—that is what is before us at the moment. The Secretary of State appears to be happy to go along with that, not only in not reforming the electricity market at all, but by relying on a wonky grasp of history to reject alternatives ways that the market might work to secure better competition, a better level of entry and an end to the vertical integration that has plagued the market over recent years.
	The pool has been mentioned this afternoon, but the pool as was—up to 2000, when it was abolished—was in fact never a full pool. Something like 90% of bilateral trades were allowed to escape the consequences of the pool, and for most of its time it had only two generators—and sometimes three—for the wholesale end of the market. Circumstances are fundamentally different today, inasmuch as one thing has remained constant. Most trades escape the day-ahead market and are done bilaterally—and completely non-transparently, in defiance, essentially, of what the market was supposed to do—and those who generate the power have an overwhelming stranglehold on the retail market. The market is vertically integrated to the extent that an awful lot of deals take place not between people, but within a company.
	Consequently, the market simply does not work; it does not keep bills down, get new entrants in and work properly for consumers. The idea of a modern pool therefore seems essential to moving the market forward. A pooling arrangement would separate who sells into the market from who buys out of it. Such a system, as put forward by the Opposition as part of their proposals for real electricity market reform, can on the basis of a low-carbon and a high-carbon pool ensure a proper market for those low-carbon generators that are independent of the vertical integration that goes on elsewhere.
	What I find truly dispiriting is that the electricity market reforms proposals as they stand will end any obligation to purchase any power from low-carbon and renewable generators in 2017. As a result, vertical integration is likely to proceed apace into the areas of some independent entry among low-carbon generation providers. With the ending of the renewable obligation in 2017 goes the ending of any power purchase agreements, which have given people certainty that they might be able to sell the power they generate on a low-carbon basis into the market. Surprise, surprise, the only people who will be likely to offer anything like a power purchase agreement once the renewable obligation has gone will be the very companies that are integrated into the market at the
	moment. Therefore, the prospect before us is of further vertical integration of the market as so-called electricity market reform proceeds.
	We have to break that cycle. Over and above the half-hour settlements, the only way we can do so within the central trading arrangements in the market is to ensure that all trades are conducted within a pool system and are completely transparent and completely contestable both ways—low carbon or high carbon. That system would make eminent and straightforward common sense given the current failure of the electricity market.
	If we do not address this problem in our reforms, we will live to regret it, because we will not have given ourselves the opportunity to introduce a key instrument that can bring about price discovery and stability and competition in the market. If that is what we want, we will be sorely disappointed as the market will subsequently fail to protect both the consumer and routes for new entrants to make their way into the market and to provide greater choice for the future. I urge Members to take careful note of the proposals both for that reason and because we want a stable market for the future which provides low-carbon energy.

Guy Opperman: I would suggest that fuel poverty and energy prices are apolitical, cross-party issues. These matters greatly affect the residents of Northumberland whom I and my colleague on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), represent. Successive Governments have, to their credit, tried to address the problems. I do not come here to criticise the previous Government. As I have made clear to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), there is much that could be said on that, but I am more interested in how we should proceed.
	I wholeheartedly welcome the current Government’s decision to address the issues we face robustly and properly. It is good that we are seeking greater transparency and competition, and greater opportunity for people to have cheaper energy. Much of this debate has focused on electricity, of course, as it is the primary source of power, but I want to talk, too, about heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, biomass and shale gas.
	I support this Government’s efforts to explore shale gas provision through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well as the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and to try to make the most of the fact that we have so much potential shale gas power. It has transformed the energy market in the United States of America. If we do not push forward with this, we will have to face up to the consequences. We must proceed in an environmentally sound way, of course, but we should be pursuing the shale gas option.
	I listened very carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s weighty and lengthy speech. I must point out, however, that it is undoubtedly the case that the reduction in tariffs now being sought was most certainly not sought by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Labour Energy Secretary. He could have legislated for Ofgem to act, as the current Government are now doing.
	The motion talks about those aged 75 and over, which I welcome, but we are addressing these issues as they impact on everybody, not just the over-75s. In the main energy market, it is true that there used to be 14 major competitor companies and there are now just six. The heating oil market is important in Northumberland, and there used to be 17 different providers in the Northumberland area, but due to the way the market was—supposedly—being run by the previous Labour Secretary of State, they were amalgamated and the amount of competition rapidly reduced. Similarly, there is now a single provider of LPG in my area and to the west of the region; there is no competition whatever. This market is manifestly broken, therefore, and I welcome the action that has been taken.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) is clearly very learned in respect of the issues under discussion. He talked about a modern version of the pool—that sounds like something somebody would propose for planning permission—but that was scrapped in 2000, and neither was it in the 2010 Labour party manifesto. [Interruption.] I am not going to get into this topic now; I look forward to hearing evidence to the contrary in the winding-up speeches—when it will, perhaps, be pointed out to me exactly where in Labour’s 2010 manifesto is the proposal to establish the brave, modern pool features.
	I have one particular criticism of the policy of the current Government, however. It is to do with the provision of biomass, whether by way of companies or households. I should declare an interest in that there is a company called EGGER in my constituency, which employs more than 400 people, and it is materially affected—as are vast numbers of other people—by the fact that the state continues to subsidise domestic purchase of biomass so that those who wish to purchase timber and other core products are priced out of the market. This is a cross-party issue which I and others have raised with the various relevant Ministers and Secretaries of State, but we must address the fact that energy is currently costing more because we are subsidising it, and that subsidy could be got rid of. Renewables obligation certificates could be reformed so that imported timber is subject to a subsidy, but domestic timber is not. That would save taxpayers’ money. It would allow a level playing field for the use of the core product and it would allow businesses to prosper and move forward in the right way.
	I will reject the motion, therefore, as it is manifestly wrong, and I will support the Government.

Tom Clarke: In order to save time, and to help those on the Government Benches who might be tempted to intervene on me, let me say that I will be making the same kind of speech that I have made for the past six or seven years, although progress has been nothing like I would have liked. However, I support the motion, of course, as its proposals are radical, relevant and realistic.
	I urge the House to look at the situation we now face. I found it chilling to read in this morning’s Order Paper an early-day motion entitled, “Excess Winter Deaths.” It points out that there are
	“30,000 excess winter deaths each year in the UK”.
	That alone is a powerful argument for saying we should address the real problems. The early-day motion also says that the cost
	“has been estimated by the Chief Medical Officer at £890 million per year in England alone”.
	That is another price we are paying for the current situation.
	This is a real problem for my constituents. Of course we can make great statements about the markets and talk about who did and did not intervene, but the reality is that we find ourselves in the current situation because we have left so much to the markets over the years and because the regulators either do not have the power to act or do not seek to use the power. I want, as I did when we had a Labour Government, to change that.
	What is the reality of the situation? In a recent poll, 90% of people surveyed claim that they are concerned about their energy bills, and continued rocketing prices mean that this is now the top household worry. Even worse is to come, as it is predicted that half the population will be in fuel poverty by the end of this year. That is a very sobering figure. About 2 million more people are experiencing fuel poverty than when I first secured a debate in Westminster Hall about six years ago. Eight years ago, the average household spent £522 a year on electricity and gas, but the figure has now risen to a staggering £1,232. That is an average increase of 140%, whereas average household income increased by a mere 20% during the same period.
	People on low incomes, single parents, people with disabilities and many others are terribly worried about what is going to happen this winter. I had hoped that, arising from our debate, we might be able to offer more hope than I have been convinced has been offered so far. The price of no other commodity has risen so steeply as that of energy. Consumers have been hit with huge energy price increases and they are powerless to do anything other than suffer in fuel poverty in increasing numbers, which is wholly unacceptable. New research has shown that half the population will be in fuel poverty by the end of this year. I know that I am citing statistics, but I plead with the House to remember that this is all about individuals and families; it is about ordinary households in our constituencies. On average, 37% of consumers are spending more than 10% of their income on gas and electricity bills, and the figure will rise by a further 13% by the end of 2012, leaving 30 million people falling into the defined category.
	So there is a problem, and it does call for transparency, for improving competition and for driving down energy bills. The average energy bill doubled in the past seven years, and 2 million more people are experiencing fuel poverty. I support, profoundly, everything the Labour Government did to give heating grants and so on, particularly given the problems faced by pensioners. However, I do not believe that it is the role of government to look at the profits that the energy companies are making and say, “We should be subsidising them.”
	That is the reality of the situation we are in. What can we do about it? We have to act and we must have real regulation. In the limited time left available, I have to say that I do not believe that Ofgem has the confidence of consumers to the extent that I would want to trust it with the role that it has. There ought to be a new role for people who are given real teeth to deal with an absolutely
	scandalous problem, which is predictable and predicted. People should not be suffering this winter. We can avoid that and we can do so through a rational approach to energy policy.

Ian Swales: I want to discuss the part of the motion that talks about
	“allowing new businesses to enter the market”.
	I would have used the word “encouraging” rather than “allowing”, but I support that section and the Government’s efforts in that direction. Last week, in Seoul, South Korea, a deal was signed by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), the British ambassador to South Korea, and the chief executives of Korean South-East Power, Daewoo Securities and Eco-Frontier. The deal was signed with the UK company MGT Power to build a new 300 MW biomass power station at Teesport in my constituency, at an estimated cost of £500 million. The deal is being announced today, and the whole House should welcome the investment by ambitious Korean companies in the UK energy sector.
	Last week, the House debated the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill. The support it provides will, no doubt, aid investment by new players, and it represents another move by this Government to encourage new projects. The measures were rightly supported by the whole House.

Gregory Barker: May I just tell the House that I returned last night from Korea, having been there for the PRECOP—pre-conference of the parties—talks? I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s own role, as the constituency Member of Parliament, in helping to attract some substantial and welcome investment.

Ian Swales: I thank the Minister for that approbation. Such investment is all good news, but to encourage new investors, especially green investors, we need clarity of policy, simplicity of policy and, above all, certainty of policy over the long term. Any arrangements made must be grandfathered over the period of a project. I wish to say a bit more about green investment, because one of the key features for investors is political risk. Gyrations in policy have seriously damaged the nascent biofuels industry in the past decade, and we must remember that policy can emerge independently in both Westminster and Brussels. Without giving too much encouragement to hon. Members sitting behind me, I believe that we must sometimes stop the change and the conflicting policies emerging from over the water—we are dealing with one such policy on biofuels right now.

Tom Greatrex: The hon. Gentleman mentions Brussels, and he, like me, is a strong supporter of carbon capture and storage technology; I not sure whether he was about to make some remarks about it. Given what he just said, does he share my concern about today’s suggestion by his Lib Dem MEP colleague Chris Davies that the NER300 money that was supposed to be available for potential UK CCS projects is now not going to be available? Chris Davies said:
	“Carbon capture and storage blocked. UK to lose out on €600 million”
	and that this
	“is a major defeat for Lib Dems”.
	Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about that? Does he want the Minister to respond to it?

Ian Swales: The shadow Minister is raising an issue that I knew nothing about. If he is right, that does sound disappointing. However, I need to go away and look at the details.
	Not dealing with long-term political risk will make potential investors simply go away. Alternatively, they will charge a huge risk premium, which may in turn make many schemes not viable. The recent whispering campaign against this Government’s green policies from some quarters has been particularly unhelpful.
	I agree with what has been said about the problem of the market between generators and suppliers, and between the sellers and the customers. I spent the first five years of my careers in the Yorkshire Electricity Board, which was a monopoly supplier to that part of the world and was buying from a monopoly producer, the Central Electricity Generating Board. So I am well aware of how inefficient such markets are. Despite our criticisms today, I think that we are in a lot better place now than we were at that time.
	Encouraging new investment in energy is good for UK business and good for growth. I know that because I see it in my constituency, where, as we well as the project that has been mentioned, Ensus runs the largest bioethanol plant in Europe, which has recently restarted; Northumbrian Water has invested £60 million in an anaerobic digestion power generation unit; and EDF is, right now, building 27 giant wind turbines just off Redcar beach.
	One part of the Teesside carbon capture and storage project is for International Power to bring its mothballed 1.8 GW gas-fired power station at Wilton back online, and I hope that the current bid in the UK will be successful. The recent Ensus 12-month shutdown was salutary. I made a ten-minute rule Bill speech on bioethanol in this House some time ago, highlighting four different areas of Government policy that were causing problems for that industry. I am delighted that the plant has restarted, but as I said, the recent news from Brussels about indirect land use legislation and proposed new tariffs is extremely unhelpful when people have put £300 million into a long-term investment.
	All such projects are for the long term; nobody makes a fast buck on these investments. So the Government must be focused on the long term—far longer than a single Parliament. I am confident that Ministers understand that, that they will put long-term legal, financial and regulatory measures in place, and that they know how important energy investment is to economic growth. So I will be supporting those Ministers in the Lobby today.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful to be called to speak in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I do not take my energy from one of the big six, so in a sense, for the first time in my life, I am not one of the 99% but one of the 1%, but I recognise that most of us do not even know which of the big six we are with, because someone else in the household deals with that,
	and many of us do not look regularly to switch. It was interesting to hear the Minister so keen talk about switching, as though it were the be-all and end-all of energy reform, but we all know that a range of measures is needed.
	I intend to make three brief but, I hope, helpful points. We need a short, a medium and a long-term approach. Looking at the short term, where do we stand today? Many of our constituents face a real cost of living crisis: their bills are going up and their wages are stagnant—if they have a job, that is. Despite the recent changes in the economy, unemployment continues to be persistently high. Young people have to pay for energy, but youth unemployment is high. Times are tough for everyone, whatever their economic position—commuters’ rail fares are going up, water bills are increasing, and the cost of living generally is quite high—and energy must be viewed in that context. There is a specific reason why the current energy price increases are so egregious: it is a matter not just of the figures, but of the economic backdrop.
	Growth is flatlining. Since the review two years ago, the economy has shrunk by 0.4%. One of the best ways to deal with the problem is, of course, to get economic growth going and get a rise in real-terms living wages for people, but that is not happening at the moment. Against that backdrop, it becomes all the more important that we, this House, convince the energy companies that we are serious when we say we want change and we want consumers—our constituents—to benefit in the same way as the companies have benefited. That is why the botched announcement by the Prime Minister last week was so serious: it was an example not just of the shambles and U-turns that seem to be happening, but of the Prime Minister not understanding his power to put pressure on the energy companies.
	A year ago, when the state of the market was similar—prices were going up but not coming down sharply enough—the Government clearly believed that by putting indirect pressure on the energy companies, they could get change. The former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), gathered the big six together for a Downing street gaggle. That resulted in a series of announcements, but a year down the line, the problems have only got worse. The short term is important.
	In the medium term, we need market reform. Energy is an incredibly powerful resource. I do not mean only the energy that allows us to manufacture or to heat our homes. I mean the word in the purest political sense, which includes big and powerful entities. It is not for no reason that in recent times we have fought and drawn ideological lines about where energy companies should sit and where the means of manufacture should reside politically.
	We need to get suppliers to pool power generation. We need Ofgem—or its successor body, if my party wins the next general election—to achieve real change in the industry. It must carry a stick as well as a carrot and be able to say, “We need proper market reform.” We also need a debate about the social expectations we have of energy companies. I feel uncomfortable about the Government directly subsidising the fulfilment of many of the social responsibilities to which the energy companies,
	which have had a very good run over the past 20 to 25 years, should be responding themselves. It cannot be all about switching, although I welcome the Labour party’s “switch together” initiative. Fair markets are the key to customer buy-in, which is essential if the energy companies are to have a sustainable business model. Doing the right thing is therefore good business sense.
	Right hon. and hon. Members know the long-term challenges. Often we do not get caught up in talking about them and instead focus on the short-term politics, but there is a clear and consistent direction of travel: climate change and our domestic energy security require us to make significant changes to our markets. Building on the previous Government’s success, this Government have introduced a range of initiatives, including energy efficiency measures and the green deal. Although we have expressed our concerns about the green deal, we welcome the Government’s direction of travel.
	Most important of all, though, is how we achieve our aims while also achieving affordability. There is only one answer: to make sure that energy markets and energy reform are such that there is customer buy-in and confidence, measured by the bottom line on their bills. Switching alone is not sufficient to achieve that. That is why I believe radical action is needed and why I welcome radical action being taken by those on my party’s Front Bench.

Justin Tomlinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), who spoke from the perspective of the consumer. I, too, will focus on that viewpoint. I welcome the fact that the Government are to use the Energy Bill to get consumers the best deal on their energy. Today, I want to discuss some of the specific measures.
	Many hon. Members have talked about simpler tariffs. In 2011, Ofgem proposed that each supplier be required to offer one standard tariff for each payment type. Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com conducted a survey of 3,500 people on what they wanted. They were given three choices: lots of choice—there are already hundreds of different tariffs and unravelling them is an extremely complicated process—a few simple tariffs, or one flat rate per company. In the responses, 18% voted for lots of choice, 37% for a few simple tariffs and 46% for one flat rate per company. That shows clearly that the Prime Minister was on to something. Consumers do not want to be diddled—[ Interruption. ] The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), claims that we are out of touch, but I think the evidence shows that that is nonsense.
	A number of people have asked why fewer people are looking to switch. One of the answers is welcome—it is a result of reducing the use of the aggressive and misleading door-to-door sales techniques that used to go on. We are thankful for that. I have been championing the cause, which is supported by 234 cross-party MPs, of financial education. Working out which is the best deal is a complicated process, so if we can equip the next generation of consumers and make them savvy, financially educated people, more of them will take advantage of the ability to do that.
	Another reason is that people have had their fingers burnt. What tends to happen is that a customer is sat on one tariff; then, their supplier hikes up the price, which
	makes them proactive in looking to change supplier. Suppliers that have not already hiked up their prices increase their sales activity, tempting the customer to switch, but a few days later the customer discovers that the new supplier is raising its prices, probably by far more than the old supplier had.
	There were welcome moves to put annual energy usage on customers’ bills, giving the information they needed to make comparisons more easily, but now we are all being encouraged to take e-bills. A lot of customers simply cannot remember their password or choose not to access their account, so fewer are getting the information now that it no longer comes on the traditional paper bills sent through the post. Which? carried out a survey—I think the shadow Secretary of State mentioned it—on whether consumers were given accurate information and found that 44% were not. People cannot rely on suppliers to give them the promised price. With Martin Lewis, I have been calling for measures to ensure that people who transfer get that tariff for at least six months, so that they avoid that “sudden price hike three days later” problem. In the current market conditions, people would be sensible to seek a fixed tariff.
	There have been some welcome moves. Last December, 4 million of the most vulnerable energy consumers were written to so that they could be given advice. Savvy financial consumers and those who have internet access can find the information, but not all people can do that. The big energy saving week highlighted the issue in the media, and the home heat helpline has helped a considerable number of people by providing independent advice.
	I am keen to extend the use of smart meters, so that people can see the tangible cost of their energy usage. One of my colleagues has just moved into a new flat, where there is a pay-as-you-go meter. Since she has had to physically charge up her key with £20 each time, she has made an effort to turn off any electrical appliance that is not needed. That is a good thing, but it also highlights a problem, because a lot of the most vulnerable consumers are on that extremely expensive tariff. We must ensure that vulnerable consumers have access to the cheapest tariffs.

Robert Smith: Vulnerable consumers on a payment meter can self-disconnect, without anyone knowing that they are in trouble.

Justin Tomlinson: An apt point.
	Businesses that go into administration are in a similar position to vulnerable consumers. Although the law says that businesses that have gone into administration should continue to be supplied, the suppliers will crank up the tariff to the highest level available, further endangering the prospects of that company in financial distress. That is something that I have been working on with R3, the insolvency practitioner representatives.
	There is confusion about what is the lowest tariff. We all understand the standard rate charge and unit price, but all consumers are different. Some may opt to pay a premium for a green tariff, for example, or for the different forms of payment. We will need to take that into consideration, but there are examples of how the policy could work. With my mobile phone contract, for example, I regularly get texts from my mobile phone company mid-contract, advising me that I could
	be on a better tariff. By a simple telephone call I am able to change to a better deal without having to extend my contract.
	Many speakers have mentioned breaking up the dominance of the big six. I welcome moves to allow more liquidity for independent suppliers and potential new entrants. The hon. Member for Luton South will then not be one of the 1%; he will become part of the majority. We must accept that over the next decade higher global oil and gas prices are to be expected, so we need to get tariffs right not only now, but in the medium and long term. We do not necessarily control our own destiny. We need to control more of our energy supply and have greater energy security. We as a nation should be exporting energy to other countries, the profits of which we can use to subsidise our own consumers.
	In conclusion, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that energy market reform is a step in the right direction. We must show collectively that we are on the side of the consumer. The market is complex and there are vulnerable people who have a vested interest in our getting it right. We must press on and do so.

Ian Lavery: This debate provides a great opportunity to discuss the Government’s energy policy, which is in a state of total disarray. The Secretary of State says one thing, the Minister says another, the Department says another, and they are all trumped by an out-of-touch Prime Minister.
	Let us be honest. The statement made by the Prime Minister last week at Question Time was ridiculous. It probably was not a statement, but it could be described as a reactionary outburst. I enjoyed the urgent question, which was replied to by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), a man for whom I have tremendous respect. He valiantly and gallantly supported the Prime Minister, defending the indefensible. It was something that every Member of Parliament would have been pleased to experience. That was a very difficult task.
	We are determined to decarbonise our energy sector. We set target after target. We do not have a cohesive energy policy, we do not have a cohesive strategy, yet we set targets in line with commitments that we are not sure we can keep. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is at its lowest point in my time here. There is uncertainty out there among large and small businesses, leading to investment unrest. They are not sure whether the energy plans proposed by the Government will change from one day to the next. There is no evidence-based financial structure to the policies being pursued by the Government. That creates mayhem for businesses that wish to invest in all types of energy in this country, mainly renewables and nuclear. DECC is in meltdown. It has some grand ideas, but the problem is that those seem to be hugely curtailed by the Treasury.
	As has been suggested today, there is a huge problem for the coalition partners, who seem to be at odds about all sorts of policies. They are at each other’s throats about energy policy, whether on wind turbines, nuclear or subsidies. We live in a perverse world, with tax cuts for the rich and fuel poverty for the poor. This winter
	people will have to choose whether to eat or to heat, because they cannot afford to keep themselves warm and to keep themselves fed. There are 6.6 million people who cannot afford to heat their homes this year, which will put them at severe risk of health problems.
	At the same time as energy companies are inflicting massive hikes on their customers, they are recording massive profits for their shareholders. British Gas increased its prices by 18%, EDF by 15.4%, E.ON by 18.1%, SSE by 18%, Scottish Power by 19% and npower by 15.7%. That is modern day Britain, divided into those who have and those who have not.
	In the time available, I shall focus on the problems of poverty. Research shows that a quarter of all households in England and Wales—5.7 million households—are now in fuel poverty. The proportion of homes in fuel poverty has increased from 18% to 25%. The Hills fuel poverty review warned that unless Ministers change course, 200,000 more people are set to be in fuel poverty in the next four years, and millions of families will be pushed deeper into fuel poverty. There are more frightening statistics. The typical dual fuel bill is up by £200 since the last election to £1,310. More people—up by 25% to 850,000—are in debt to their electricity suppliers. The figure for gas is in the region of 700,000, a rise of 20%. People cannot afford to pay for their energy and are in debt to both the gas and the electricity companies.
	I had planned to say much more, but the time allocated to us has been cut substantially, as is normally the case when I get up to speak. There are many topics that we could have discussed. The green deal was touched on. Some of the comments from the Government Benches were wholly incorrect and should be put right on the record. We could have discussed the success of Warm Front, the carbon price floor and the emissions performance standard. Another critical issue is the strike price of the contracts for difference. All these are important, but I wanted to focus on fuel poverty versus the excessive profits being made by the energy companies. We are living in a multi-tier Britain, which we need to highlight.

Neil Parish: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. I endorse many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) about the tariffs, the need for competition and the need for people to understand those tariffs. The only way the market will work is by ensuring that there is proper competition and that people are able to switch easily from one company to another, without those companies having tied the consumer in.
	The policies of successive Governments, both the Labour Government and this coalition Government, are driving up the price of energy. There must be competition between the companies to keep the overall level down, but in the end consumers will pay more for their gas and electricity. Our green policies are good, but they cost money and they will cost the consumer money. We must be realistic about how we deal with that. I have every sympathy for the fuel poor but the addition of a green tariff is bound to push up energy prices. We need greater competition and we must look after the poorest in society.
	I will now make some specific points. Those who can access pipeline gas to heat their homes, however much the price might have gone up, are actually—dare I say it?—the most fortunate, because those who have oil heating are paying even more. Not only are they paying £1,400 for 2,000 litres of oil, which it does not take the average household long to get through, but they might live in a house that is listed or has traditional windows, which they cannot replace with double glazing, or solid walls, which are very difficult to insulate.
	I congratulate the Minister on the money he has put forward to help insulate such properties in rural areas, but I do not believe it is enough. As I said at the start of my remarks, the whole idea is that the green deal is essential because energy prices will continue to rise, but the trouble is that many of my constituents cannot necessarily get the green deal because the figures do not work with the cost of insulating solid walls, for example. Ultimately, those consumers in my constituency and across the country will end up paying more for the insulation than they will save on their energy bills, and that is something we need to deal with.
	We talk about competition in the gas and electricity markets, but where is the competition in the heating oil industry? There is virtually none. It is almost a cartel—I can say that in the House—so there is no competition. Two years ago we saw prices almost double when there was snow on the ground. Some of the worst snow in the United Kingdom was in Northern Ireland, but the prices there did not rise as much as they did on most of the rest of the mainland for the simple reason that there is greater competition there because more people have oil-type heating.
	The previous Minister referred the oil companies to the Office of Fair Trading. I want that to be pursued, because consumers who cannot get gas must get either liquefied petroleum gas or oil, and LPG is usually dearer than oil and covers the same spectrum of prices. That is absolutely key. I want to see exactly what we will do to help those consumers in my constituency and many other rural constituencies. It is not just rural constituencies; there are old cottages in many town centres across the country and they have to be dealt with. I want to see real progress in that regard.
	My final points are on energy security and what we will do in future. It is no good simply saying that we have shale gas; let us actually try to exploit it. Look at what has happened to the gas market in America—I am not suggesting for one moment that we have the same amounts of shale gas—where the price has been reduced by about two thirds. We also have a lot of coal, believe it or not. It is not fashionable to burn coal, but clean coal could be quite effective, and gasification could be another great use of that resource.
	Meanwhile, will we rely on gas from the Russians? I spent 10 years in the European Parliament and know that various European countries, especially Poland, do not like the idea of the Russians being able to turn off the gas and hold Europe to ransom. We have the whole mix of energy, but we must face up to the fact that—it is no good the Labour party saying otherwise, because they pursued the same type of policy, which is to drive up energy prices—if we are going to drive up prices, we have to make sure that the poorest in society can get help and that those who are not on mains grid gas have particular help because of the high cost of their bills.

William Bain: With the economy and real wages having shrunk over the past two years, no issue is more important for the living standards of my constituents, and indeed those of all right hon. and hon. Members, than electricity and gas prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) points out, average fuel bills have risen as high as £1,310 a year over the past five years. Prices over the past two years alone have risen by £200, high gas prices could, without adequate action, add £175 to bills by 2020, and wholesale gas costs added £290 to average energy bills between 2004 and 2010. Under the Government’s present policies, the number of tariffs stands at 430; it has risen by 70 in the past year. We have soaring fuel poverty; as many as 3 million elderly people across the country are now affected by it. There are 6,400 over-75s in my constituency alone who would benefit right now from a change of Government and a change of policy to ensure that they are on the lowest possible tariff and have a £200 saving on their electricity and gas bills this year.
	The Government have shown in the debate that they simply do not get that a more comprehensive reform of the electricity market is required. They simple do not understand that 54% of the average electricity bill is affected by wholesale energy costs. Our constituents ask, “Why is it that when wholesale energy costs fall our bills do not fall, but when they rise our bills immediately go up?” There is something broken in the electricity supply market. The Government, in their remarks today, simply show no inclination to tackle it.
	Sadly, the Government’s policy is marked by shambles and confusion. It seems that the Government are now suffering from the reverse Midas touch; they cannot produce a Budget that stands scrutiny for 24 hours, they cannot run our trains properly and they have made U-turns on forests and on badgers. The joke is that the ghost of John Major is now stalking the Government, and I do not mean the amiable, spectral presence of the Chief Whip, which graced the Chamber a few moments ago. This policy, and the way the Prime Minister mishandled it last week, shows that this is a Government in a state of shambles and breakdown.
	Sadly, I must also strike a discordant note with the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), because the Scottish Government are unfortunately letting down my constituents on the issue of fuel poverty. Dr Brenda Boardman, who did so much to coin and develop the concept of fuel poverty, described the Scottish Government’s policies as
	“feeble, inadequate and namby-pamby”
	and said that they are now putting 800,000 Scots in record fuel poverty. That is at the same time they are cutting the budget for fuel poverty, which is an area devolved to Holyrood. It is small wonder that Dr Boardman accused the Scottish Government of failing to back up their weasel words with proper actions—something we have seen a lot of in the past few days from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
	We are also seeing confusion in this Government’s policy. The industry is losing confidence in the Government’s ability to commit to green investment. It is small wonder that we have seen little improvement in our energy mix, as the Chancellor wages an ideological crusade against
	green investment and make outrageous references to the green Taliban. He refuses to capitalise the green investment bank properly and his failure on growth and debt means that the bank will not have proper borrowing powers by 2015. We see shambles, confusion and a disjointed Government.
	At the same time, our market is not being reformed. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently produced evidence showing that the least efficient company spends twice as much per customer on its operations as the most efficient company. Some people pay £330 a year more for their electricity and gas than their next-door neighbours, as many as 5 million people across the country are being overcharged and the number of switchers is at an historic low of 15% a year, the lowest since records began in 2003. If the market worked at the moment, competition would ensure convergence on operational costs, but that is not happening at all. In fact, those costs have risen, not fallen, in the past three years, as the IPPR has shown.
	We need a radical change of course. We need an arrangement that brings in proper pooling, a new regulator and a much stronger link between the wholesale gas and electricity market and the prices paid by domestic consumers.

David Mowat: I want to draw attention to a couple of areas where I agree with Opposition Front Benchers. First, it is clear that the best way of making progress is better insulation. The green deal is fundamental to energy policy, and Ministers need to be accountable for making progress with it. It is also true that we need more transparency in the energy market. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) noted that there are 430 separate tariffs; that is unacceptable and it needs to be fixed. I understand that it will be fixed by next summer, but I am disappointed that it is taking so long. I also agree with Opposition Members that the market needs new entrants and that the process of new businesses coming in has been too slow.
	Where I disagree with Opposition Members is on their lazy assumption that there is a cartel in operation—leaving aside the fact that that is a criminal offence, and that if they have evidence of it they should take it to the police. I intervened on the Secretary of State to point out that in the gas market we are 26th cheapest out of 27 in the European Union. If that is a cartel, it is not a very effective one. The reason we are so cheap has nothing to do with tax. In France and Germany, gas prices are 60% more expensive than ours, but that is a market effect difference not a tax difference. It would be good if we addressed some of that. On electricity, the position is less clear; our prices are not so cheap. Frankly, that has a lot to do with the decisions that we make in this House and the tariffs we impose on the market.
	The gas market and the electricity market are two separate markets. We sometimes talk about them as though they are the same, but they are not. There is an issue with off-grid gas, as we have heard from several Members on both sides of the House. In the case of on-grid gas—Members can, by all means, intervene on me if they disagree, but we have had a three-hour debate that has been broadly fact-free—the evidence is that our prices are not more expensive than anywhere else. Other
	Members have talked about shale gas, and I will not go any further on that, other than to say that this morning, on the Henry hub, US gas prices were one quarter of our gas prices in the European balancing point. That will make a massive difference to the competitiveness of the US economy in a variety of ways. Even if we do not, or cannot, exploit our shale gas to that extent, we need to start to think about the differences in economics that will arise with America.
	The three main policy areas in the electricity market are carbon and decarbonisation, which we must achieve, cost, and security. Interestingly, we sometimes assume that we are behind as regards carbon. It is true that we are behind France—with massive amounts of cheap nuclear energy, we use more carbon per head than the French by a long way—but we use a lot less per head than Germany, despite the fact that Germany has four times as much renewable energy as we have because it continues to burn coal to a massive degree. That is what we need to address in terms of our decarbonisation agenda. The previous Government signed us up for renewables targets that were extremely onerous and will have only a minor impact on the amount of carbon that we use. The country that has reduced its carbon by the most over the past year or so is the United States as it has replaced coal with shale gas.
	The big issue is security. Ofgem, which we are giving one of its routine kickings, has said that we will have about 4% surplus electricity capacity by 2015-16. We seem to be in a slow-motion car crash with electricity supply. The likelihood of there not being power cuts by the end of this decade is getting increasingly low. When the House starts to debate that issue, we will begin to make progress on what will really be important. One of the mechanisms by which we can avert this situation is imports. I gently say to the Minister that imports now represent about 10% of electricity in this country. That is a massive policy failure. French nuclear electricity and Dutch electricity is coming to this country, and there are no jobs in that.
	I do not have much time to talk about costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made several good points about the somewhat hypocritical tone that this House can have in imposing costs that create fuel poverty and then beating up people we perceive as being responsible for not somehow wishing those costs away. It is right that we—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have 15 minutes left and three more speakers. I call Jamie Reed.

Jamie Reed: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Energy costs are soaring and fuel poverty is on the rise. Energy bills are now one of the single largest bills faced by any family. Away from the numbers, what does this mean? It means that in constituencies such as mine across this country, people are choosing to sit in the dark, to sit in the cold, and to fear the winter. It is no exaggeration to state that the choice between heating and eating is a now a reality. At one time, we would have dismissed such a claim as hyperbole, but Members in all parts of the House know that it is true. The consequence
	of higher energy bills, and the across-the-board inflation that they bring to other goods and services such as food prices, is, frankly, that people will die. That is the stark reality of the scale of the challenge facing us as a country as we set about reforming electricity markets.
	I cannot speak in this House about energy policy without mentioning the enormous contribution of the late and much missed Malcolm Wicks. He was a tireless campaigner on fuel poverty and a superb Energy Minister, foolishly removed. In 2005, Malcolm brought me, as a new Member of Parliament, into the No. 10 policy unit to help to create the new nuclear policy for this country, and I will always be grateful to him for that. As a national politician, he made a huge difference to the lives of my constituents.
	From the outset, and squarely within the national interest, but also in the best interests of my constituents, I offer the new Energy Minister, who is in his place, all the support he could possibly ask for, should he make the right decisions—but, more importantly, should he make them in a timely manner. The truth is that we are running out of time if we are serious about tackling fuel poverty, tackling security of supply—a looming crisis of incredible proportions that this House too readily ignores—and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
	Wherever energy market reform ends up—I commend the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—the truth that many of us in this House dare not whisper is that the days of cheap energy may well be over. For years, a deregulated market ensured moderately low prices that the consumer could ordinarily accept. Generating companies, which not only sweated their assets but failed to invest during the fat years, now face massive public policy concerns and—let us be clear—massive public policy responsibilities, and in many cases the market wants to reach for the easy options and the quick fixes. It is in this context that we should view fracking for shale gas. The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) was right this weekend to warn the Government against betting the farm on shale—it is short-sighted and idiotic to do so. There are no easy ways out of the situation we now find ourselves in, but there are solutions and I will focus on the nuclear industry and nuclear power production in general.
	Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy is not subject to major price fluctuations. I could say an awful lot more about the benefits of the nuclear industry and nuclear power. Electricity market reform must deliver long-term price stability for consumers and businesses, and it must also ensure long-term revenue stability and predictable returns for investors. Only in this way will we ensure the investment that we need in our nuclear fleet and the investment necessary, in whatever generating form, for the ultimate benefit of our consumers and our society.
	The Minister knows that we need new nuclear and that we need it quickly. He knows that over the next 15 years, barring lifetime extensions, we will be down to one operating nuclear station. The heavy lifting on support for nuclear generation has been done already over many years. The public support it, the need is clear and the demand is great, but we must accelerate delivery or else invite collapse. I urge the Government to pay close attention to the evidence given by Vincent de Rivas, the EDF chief executive officer, to the Energy and Climate Change Committee yesterday. He said:
	“With investment going in and demand rising we must expect the unit price of electricity to increase over the coming decades.”
	Given that we need that investment, and given that, without question, we need new nuclear, surely the question for Government is: how do we protect the most vulnerable from these rises? This requires a policy response from the Government; it cannot simply be left to the market.
	The final investment decision in the first new nuclear reactor at Hinkley will be taken at the end of the year and it is now imperative that the Government do everything they can to assist EDF in making the right investment decision in our national interest. Mr de Rivas said yesterday:
	“We are shovel ready. We are on the brink of delivering an infrastructure project similar in scale to the London Olympics. We are poised to deliver immense benefits in terms of jobs, skills and economic growth—locally and nationally.
	But like all investors in capital intensive infrastructure projects we need to have a compelling business case. In this respect our final investment decision requires more progress to be made.”
	We must please both the consumer and the industries and investors that are ready to help us.
	On the vexed issue of subsidy for nuclear, I say to the Minister: do it. I am explicitly pro-subsidy for new nuclear generation, because the reality is that not a single electricity generation source is not subsidised in this country in one way or another. We can call it whatever we like, but the nuclear renaissance in the United Kingdom needs direct Government assistance and I will support any moves to do so.
	Finally, will the Minister say how he will help me to progress new nuclear developments in my own constituency; how we can resolve the mineral rights issues that are affecting them; how we can speedily progress grid connection issues and plutonium re-use; and how we can effectively, assuredly and credibly take forward deep geological disposal with the right, credible partners? Time is of the essence and we have no time to lose.

Chris Evans: I declare an interest as a Co-operative Member of Parliament. A year ago we stood here, had the same debate and heard the same stories. We heard that energy companies were always putting their prices up. This year we are back, but what has changed? I read this morning that, last year, 13 pensioners died every hour of cold-related diseases and illnesses. There are about 20 hon. Members present—the equivalent number of pensioners die every two hours.
	I am fed up of hearing those on the Government Benches blame the Labour Government for everything. They play the blame game over and over again, yet tonight, in my constituency of Islwyn and in constituencies represented by Government Members, somebody will be wearing their coat to watch television, thinking about going to bed early and not putting an extra bar on their fire because they cannot afford it. That is the reality that they face. They look to this House—to us—to stand up to the energy companies.
	I have received e-mails all week as a result of what the Prime Minister said last week. I am afraid that, again, he is offering false hope to all those people who are struggling. It is a crying shame that, when privatisation of the energy markets was first mooted, Members of this House, including Baroness Thatcher, talked grandly about rolling back the frontiers of the state. When she
	did so, I do not think she expected that one company—a monopoly—would be replaced by an oligopoly of six companies, or that the Government would stand back, without teeth.
	I have heard Government Members say, “Oh, but we had the energy companies round to 10 Downing street and we told them in no uncertain terms that they have to help the most vulnerable in society.” After 18 individual investigations—by Ofgem, Committees of this House and the European Parliament—does anybody actually believe that the energy companies will listen? Their attitude will be just like that of the boy called into the headmaster’s study at the public school I never went to, who says, “Yes, sir, I promise I’ll never do it again,” and then, when he walks out the door, says, “Don’t worry about him; what’s he going to do to me? Absolutely nothing.”

Caroline Flint: Sounds like the former Chief Whip.

Chris Evans: Yes, that does sound like him.
	There has to be a radical reform of our energy market. It is no good going on with only six companies buying in and selling energy. I have talked before about having a central energy supplier to buy energy at a fixed rate and then to sell it to whichever companies want to buy it, so that we can bring more people into the market.
	We must talk in the here and now, and we have the draft Energy Bill. Co-operative and community energy programmes have raised massive concerns about the Bill, and I hope that the Government will listen to them. Which? has said that the Big Switch campaign was the best of its type, but there is still more that we need to do.
	A constituent came to see me last Friday and produced a bill from SWALEC. I looked at it and could not understand it. A member of my staff who worked for SWALEC for a number of years looked at it, and he said he could not understand it. Other people looked at it, and they could not understand it. I have read in Which? that a chartered accountant has looked at his own energy bill and not been able to understand it. What chance do elderly people and the most vulnerable in our society have of switching when they cannot understand their bills? I spoke to my member of staff who had worked for SWALEC and said that I would have just offered it a £50 ex gratia payment to go away. That seems to be the way forward for the energy companies. When I looked at that bill, the most amazing thing that I saw was a £15 charge for being a low user. SWALEC was charging my constituent for using less energy. It is crazy.
	We have heard that there are 400 tariffs, and the most basic economic argument that anybody could put to the energy companies is that people cannot buy luxury energy. If I go to Currys wanting to buy a television, I might buy one with an LCD, LED or plasma screen, or I might even want an old-fashioned box in my living room. The thing is, I have a choice, because some of them are better-quality products. There is no luxury gas or other energy. We can only use one type to heat our homes, and we have to remember that. People are being ripped off, and it is up to the Government to stand up for them.

Barry Gardiner: If one is going to reform the energy market, it seems to make sense to configure that market according to one’s objectives. When the Secretary of State spoke earlier, it was extraordinary that he did not set out the clear objectives of the reconfigured energy market. I will set out mine.
	The first objective is on carbon targets. We have our 2020 targets and our 2030 targets, and the Committee on Climate Change has been clear that we should look to set a target of 40 grams to 60 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh and move towards achieving our renewables targets. If we are to reconfigure the market, let us do it to achieve that objective.
	The second objective is on fuel poverty. The price per unit of energy will rise, but fuel poverty must come down. That means that energy efficiency has to be an integral part of the reconfiguration of the market.
	Security of supply is the third objective that I wish to put forward. We require a mix of energy from both within and outside the UK. We need both base load sources such as coal and nuclear and intermittent sources such as wind and hydro, as well as dual-purpose sources such as gas.
	How do we go about configuring the market in that way? First, I want to hear the Government talking about standards—building standards and product standards. Why is the percentage of excess winter deaths lower in Finland than in the UK? That seems like madness when we compare the climates, unless we understand the importance of the role of building standards. That has to be part of a sensible reconfiguration of energy policy in this country, which cannot be achieved through encouragement and incentivisation alone. We need compulsion to ensure that those standards are driven throughout the market, which the Government have refused to address.
	We need honesty. Unit prices for energy will rise, because world demand is rising with increased wealth in Asia, which is a good thing, and with increased global population, which is not such a good thing. That means that we have to structure the market to ensure that it is maximally efficient. Vertical integration allows a company such as Centrica to show obscene profits for its wholesale side, while making what the regulator considers to be “normal” profits in its retail arm of British Gas. Yes, increased liquidity in the forward supply market will help promote competition on the retail side, but it will not solve the abuse that vertical integration is allowing. By tackling that issue, retail unit prices will not rise by as much as they otherwise will—although if we are honest, we should say that they will still rise on a per unit basis.
	Security of supply includes the investment of £200 billion over the next decade in our energy network and of £110 billion in our electricity infrastructure. That is to replace the 30% of generation that will go off stream by 2024. We need base load, yet today’s rumour is that the EU new entrants reserve carbon capture and storage project in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will not now proceed because of the Government’s failure either to match fund or to submit the appropriate information to secure the bid. CCS is vital because coal is vital—vital to India and to China—and whatever we do with renewables
	in this country, unless we come up with a CCS solution for coal-fired generation around the world, any paltry reduction in emissions achieved by the UK will not stop climate change. That is why we need a global perspective on our own energy policy. The CCS technology that we can put in place could drive the entire green economy to which both sides of the House claim to have signed up, but of which we see very little evidence.
	Nuclear base load is an essential part of the mix, but the Government are set to negotiate a strike price for the nuclear feed-in tariff in the region of £100 per megawatt-hour. The cost of the two EDF reactors at Hinkley Point has risen by £14 billion and is tied in with the strike price. That is madness for a 40-year lifecycle project when onshore wind is already performing at as low as £94 per megawatt-hour, and figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change suggest that offshore wind will achieve £100 per megawatt-hour by 2020.

Luciana Berger: It is one week since the Prime Minister sent the Government’s energy policy spinning into chaos, yet after this afternoon’s debate, I am not sure that we are any closer to knowing what actually is their policy. One thing, however, is clear: the soap opera of the past week has shown that the Prime Minister’s shambolic, “make it up as you go along” approach to energy policy has failed, and will do nothing to help hard-pressed consumers struggling with rising bills this winter.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, the Government are in disarray over energy. Even the Liberal Democrats did not know what the coalition’s policy was, and during last Thursday’s urgent question, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was reduced to asking the Energy Minister:
	“Do I understand from his reply…that this is not a firm policy proposal, but merely an item that is currently under consideration?”—[Official Report, 18 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 490.]
	Since that urgent question, neither the Secretary of State nor any Back-Bench Member of the coalition has defended the Prime Minister’s policy announcement that he made last week during Prime Minister’s questions.
	Despite the confusion on the Government Benches, we have heard a number of excellent speeches this afternoon. In his response, will the Minister address the serious points raised by a number of Members about the circulating rumours that the UK is set to lose out on up to €600 million for CCS because the Chancellor has blocked the match funding?
	Members have rightly highlighted the public’s concern about increased energy prices and the urgent need for Government action to curb those prices. As my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, it is a whole year since the Government’s infamous energy summit. The situation for all our constituents has got worse not better, and it is set to get even worse.
	As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said, we have a cost-of-living crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck reminded the House that in the two years since the Government were elected, energy bills have risen by £200, with the average household
	now paying more than £1,300 for their dual fuel bill. That was before we heard last week that three of the big energy companies are imposing another round of price hikes, adding a further £100 to people’s bills this winter.
	Some 850,000 people are already in debt to their energy companies. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) and for Islwyn highlighted in their contributions the shocking prices and conditions that many of their constituents will face this winter. A constituent has e-mailed to tell me that their energy company wrote to them last week to say that their bills will rise by 14.1% for gas and 16.1% for electricity this winter. Faced with those huge increases, it is no wonder the public cannot understand why the Government are not doing anything to help them.
	Millions are suffering in fuel poverty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said. On this Government’s watch, the number of households spending 10% or more of their disposable income on electricity and gas has increased to one in four—a staggering figure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck exposed, that is 5.7 million people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said, 3 million pensioners are in fuel poverty.
	What about when people try to switch? The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly drew the House’s attention to a recent investigation by Which? showing that a staggering 44% of consumers who called their energy supplier to find out the best deal were not offered it.
	In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State mentioned the record of the Labour Government—I am delighted he wanted to talk about the Labour Government, because I am proud of our record. We lifted 1.75 million people out of fuel poverty; an average of 200,000 every year were helped under Warm Front; and 6 million homes were insulated thanks to obligations placed on energy companies. We had the decent homes standard, winter fuel payments and the world’s first climate change legislation.
	What have we had from this Government? We have had an energy summit that was nothing more than a photo-op, and a check, switch and insulate campaign that led to fewer people switching suppliers. The number of people getting help through Warm Front, which the Government are scrapping, is down by 80%. We have had an energy efficiency scheme—the green deal—but the Secretary of State’s Department predicts that it will lead to an 83% reduction in the number of people getting loft and cavity wall insulation.
	A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made representations on how the golden rule does not stack up. From next year, support for fuel-poor, low-income vulnerable households will halve, with no Treasury-funded scheme to help the fuel-poor for the first time since the 1970s. I do not know about the Secretary of State, but I would rather have Labour’s record than his. Every day the public are paying the price of his incompetence through higher and higher energy bills. It simply is not good enough.
	In her opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) laid out very clearly the problems of how our energy market works.
	There is a lack of competition, with six companies supplying 99% of homes, squeezing out new entrants. We have some of the highest pre-tax energy prices in Europe. The Secretary of State went to great lengths to talk about switching, but on his Government’s watch, the number of people switching supplier is the lowest on record. Bills shoot up when wholesale costs rise, but they never seem to come down when energy prices fall.
	No one is saying that the energy market is not complicated, or that changing it is easy. Difficult questions need answering. How do we move from a high-carbon, high-cost economy to a low-carbon, low-cost one? How can we meet our climate change obligations while keeping the lights on? How can we help those who are off-grid as much as those who are on-grid? A number of hon. Members made representations to that effect.
	Those are fundamental challenges for the future of our country, but because of the scale of the challenges, we need to raise our ambitions and not lower them. It is not good enough for the Government to stand aside and tell people, “You’re on your own.” The public need a Government who will face these problems head on, not simply accept business as usual, yet all they offer is more of the same.
	Despite the Government’s claims to the contrary, the Energy Bill contains nothing fundamentally to change our energy market, nothing to help people who cannot afford to stay warm this winter, nothing to change how power is bought and sold, nothing to support co-operatives or community energy schemes and nothing to make the market more competitive or more transparent. What is needed is proper market reform, not an acceptance of the status quo. Our motion offers real change.
	Today’s debate has shown a clear choice between a shambolic, out-of-touch Government making policy on the hoof and lurching from one disaster to the next, a Government whose only answer to rising bills is to tell people they are on their own, and a Labour party that would provide help now for people struggling to keep warm and have the determination to take on the big energy companies and make the market simpler and more responsible. That is the choice hon. Members face when they vote today. I commend the motion to the House.

John Hayes: A long, long time ago, cavemen discovered that flint made fire, but the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) barely raised a flicker, let alone a flame. I grant that there was a good deal of heat, and she certainly generated plenty of friction, but there was not a gleam of illumination as to why, in power, Labour did so little to deliver the kind of market reform that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) just claimed was so necessary. Is it any wonder that the right hon. Lady finds herself in the dark shadows of opposition, not the bright light of power?
	I say that not in anger but in sorrow—sorrow not only because I know that the right hon. Lady is a great deal more than window dressing, and because she made some strong points about market entry and creating a more plural marketplace to create downward pressure on prices, but because, more profoundly, she knows, and I know she knows, that the debate on energy policy
	deserves better than a half-hearted advocacy of a half-baked motion, and because she also knows that the country’s future should be characterised by a cross-party approach and a bound commitment to plotting a path to a future where energy supply is secure; a future where we build an energy infrastructure that is fit for purpose; a future where the vulnerable are protected from unaffordable energy bills; and a future where the needs of the many, not the interests of the few, drive an energy policy that is for the people, not, as was sadly the case under the previous Government, coloured by the demands of the powerful.
	Yes, absolutely that means market reform in order to foster clarity and sow certainty so that businesses can make their business plans and invest in the way I described. Yes, it does mean a generation mix sufficient to guarantee resilience and bring security, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said. It means, too, moving to a market that is more responsive and competitive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) advocated. It also means more nuclear, by the way, as Members who are as great fans of nuclear power as I am will be relieved to hear. And it means communities benefiting, guiding and owning the energy infrastructure, not having infrastructure, such as onshore wind turbines, scattered across our precious land like an atavistic echo of dark satanic mills.
	I am reluctant to be too hard on the Opposition, however, because I never seek contumely, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and because I know that they are handicapped by two things, among many. First, they know that tariffs are an important way of driving down the price people pay for heat and light and that the Prime Minister’s intervention and the subsequent discussions have opened up that debate in a new and helpful way. Secondly, they also know that in the 13 years for which they were in control there was none of the landmark legislation necessary to secure our energy future—they dithered, they delayed, they deferred.
	Who was the ditherer in chief who presided over this spectacular inaction? It was none other than Disraeli’s new best mate, the Leader of the Opposition. Just a couple of years ago, as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, he told the House that the purpose of his own energy Bill was
	“to strengthen Ofgem’s powers in a number of respects and to make it a more proactive regulator”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 254.]
	Yet now, when asked what they would do by a hard-pressed pensioner living in fuel poverty, by a hard-pressed farmer facing a cold winter or by a hard-pressed family anticipating Christmas with fear because of energy bills, Labour’s answer is clear as crystal: reform Ofgem and yet again rearrange the regulatory framework to invent a new quango. If they were running Byzantium, they would want it to be more bureaucratic.
	In contrast, we will take direct action with a Bill published in weeks, not months, to help people get lower tariffs, using all in our power to address the issues of fuel poverty and bills that are too high for the vulnerable groups that have been supported by so many speakers in the debate. We are also providing immediate
	assistance to those who need help with their energy bills through our four-year warm home discount. The previous Government’s voluntary scheme meant that vulnerable people were offered different tariffs simply because they happened to have different energy suppliers, but our mandatory scheme helped 600,000 vulnerable pensioners last year alone through a £120 rebate on their energy bills.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said that she would rather have Labour’s record than ours. Let me tell her that the number of fuel-poor households rose year on year from 2004 to 2009 from 2 million to 5.5 million. That is Labour’s sorry record in defence of the poor.

Neil Parish: DCC plc owned between 40% and 50% of the heating oil market and also trade as BoilerJuice and GB Oils. Will the Minister ask his officials to investigate the dominance in the heating oil market of one particular company?

John Hayes: I have to say that in my hon. Friend’s constituency there are really only two principal heating oil suppliers. He is right that that does not create necessary competitive pressure. I shall certainly ask my officials to consider such issues. Indeed, my hon. Friend made a powerful and persuasive speech on the subject during the debate.
	We are providing support through the winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, which this Government have increased from £8.50 to £24. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) have said, we need to target the support in the most effective way. Through a new obligation from 2013 we will require energy companies to deliver support for heating and insulation for the most vulnerable. This is about demand. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) said, we have too often debated energy only in terms of production and insufficiently in terms of consumption.
	How curious it is that, bedazzled by the glitz and glamour of wealth, the Labour party pandered to corporate power over those 13 years. Keir Hardie must have looked down, wringing his hands in horror. They pander and ponder, bourgeois left minds honed to wander.
	As an admirer of Joseph Chamberlain, only in my dreams did I believe that one day I would be the first Tory Minister in decades to advocate tariff reform at this Dispatch Box. Although these are different tariffs and different reform, I am delighted to do so today. I repeat that we will use all in our power to ensure through the Energy Bill that people get the best deal.
	That is the difference between my party and the Labour party. We act; they meander, pander and ponder. They want to change the regulations; we want to change the policies. They want a different Ofgem; we want to make a difference to people’s bills.

Jamie Reed: I would very much like to sit down with the Minister and discuss the concept of bourgeois left minds. Will he also meet me and the Sellafield workers campaign to talk about the energy policies he is discussing and to expedite new nuclear development in my constituency?

John Hayes: I can think of nothing that would give me more delight. I will certainly come to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
	What gives me the most sorrow about this motion and the Labour party is the fact that with real pathos they have made the worst mistake of all for an Opposition: they have confused opposition with opportunism. They have put party interest above national interest and short-term instincts above long-term interests. They are about fiction, not facts—and for fans of shale gas, friction, not fracts——[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That one might have been too clever for them. While they face years of hard labour on the Opposition Benches, and—to reference Dylan Thomas, while, rather than raging against the dying of the light, they go gently into that good night—and languish in the darkness, we will bring heat to homes and light to lives through energy policy for the many, not the few.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

Dawn Primarolo: Before we proceed to the next debate, I have to announce the results of the deferred Division on the Question relating to the draft Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012. The Ayes were 260 and the Noes were 206, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Policing

David Hanson: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with serious concern the Electoral Reform Society’s warning that the police and crime commissioner elections ‘threaten to result in the lowest turnout of any nationwide election in British history’ following the Government’s decision to hold the elections on 15 November 2012; further notes that the Electoral Reform Society is predicting that turnout will be significantly lower than at the local elections, held in May; believes the Government’s cuts to 15,000 police officers demonstrates its wrong-headed attitude to policing; is concerned about the effect this has on police morale; further notes that Ministers have confirmed that the Government has broken its promise not to cut frontline police officers by taking 6,800 police officers off the front line; is concerned that Government policy is removing crucial tools for the police to catch offenders and tackle crime in the future, such as restricting the use of CCTV and DNA evidence and the abolition of ASBOs; and believes that the Government’s decision to hold elections in November rather than in May wastes public money that should be spent on front line police.
	First, may I pay tribute to the work of our police officers, and the police staff who support them and work with them? In keeping our communities safe, it is their job to respond to the calls, investigate crimes and keep our confidence in policing high. In the week that we have debated Hillsborough and the failings associated with it, let us not forget the daily work police officers do, with professionalism and commitment, on our behalf.
	I had the privilege of attending last week’s police bravery awards, as did the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, whom I congratulate on his appointment to the Privy Council. We listened to tales of outstanding bravery in the face of immense challenges, and the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I were astounded by the accounts of police who entered burning buildings, dived into docks and struggled with armed assailants—every day doing the ordinary, but on occasion doing the extraordinary, on our behalf. It was a real honour for us to be there.
	It is also important to pay tribute, as we did at York Minster only two or three weeks ago, to those police officers who have died in the line of duty. I must pay tribute to the latest officers killed on duty, Police Constables Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone. They were two bright young officers, whose promising careers were cut short in a most cowardly and reprehensible way. I hope I speak for the whole House in saying we will never forget them or their service.
	We are just three weeks away from the elections for police and crime commissioners in England and Wales on 15 November, and it is worth setting out the situation in regard to them. We are three weeks away from an election few people know about and even fewer understand. We are three weeks away from an election that, in my view, has been handled incompetently by the Government—I do not blame the Minister personally as he has only just been appointed to his post.
	The election did not need to be held in November. The Tories are holding it then for the sake of a political fix with their political friends, the Liberal Democrats—who, at the last count, had candidates standing in only 24 of the 41 police areas. Perhaps they were embarrassed by the fact that at the general election they promised 3,000 extra police officers, yet they have presided over a cut of 15,000 police officers to date.

Chris Bryant: And only one Liberal Democrat MP is present.

David Hanson: Indeed, only one Liberal Democrat is present: the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). [Interruption.] Yes, one other Liberal Democrat is, in fact, present: the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart).
	I make these points because I am worried about the turnout in these elections. I worry for the Minister in having this flagship policy of elections for PCCs on which the Government have done an abysmal job in generating interest and turnout and getting people engaged.

Henry Bellingham: On the question of turnout, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the comments of Lord Blair of Boughton were deeply unhelpful and extremely negative, and that someone with his experience should have known better?

David Hanson: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I will be voting on 15 November, and I urge everybody else to vote, too, to ensure that these elections have as high a turnout as possible.

Chris Bryant: And vote Labour.

David Hanson: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that people should vote Labour on 15 November, and I shall establish why they should do so in due course.
	These elections matter. The PCCs have big roles to play in setting budgets, in setting priorities and in engaging the public.

Stephen McCabe: In fairness to Lord Blair, it should be said that he has in effect been the victim of a Tory police and crime commissioner and was sacked for political reasons. Is it not therefore understandable that he is a bit sceptical about this Tory policy?

David Hanson: Lord Blair certainly knows about the role of PCCs, but I think people should vote in this election.

Julian Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome all the fantastic Conservative prospective PCCs, and in particular the Conservative women who are standing on 15 November?

David Hanson: I certainly welcome the fact that the Conservatives have a candidate standing in every area, unlike the Liberal Democrats, who voted for the policy but are not seeing it through and therefore are not committed to it. We in the Labour party have put a lot of effort into selecting candidates, and more than a third of them are women, which is very promising.

Gareth Thomas: Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), is not what has happened in London particularly instructive in terms of the context for this debate? Mayor Boris Johnson has presided over almost 1,500 police officers
	being cut and almost 2,000 police community support officers being lost. Is that not part of the Conservative record and to be regretted?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as that is part of the Conservatives’ record. One of the things that we will be campaigning on outside London in these elections is their appalling record on cutting police throughout England and Wales.
	Today’s debate is a chance for us to try to engage the public in these elections to ensure—if this is possible—a good turnout. The Government’s record, to date, has been appalling. Hon. Members should listen not only to me, but to the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and head of the soon-to-be-dissolved National Policing Improvement Agency. He said:
	“If you could have constructed a manual on how not to conduct an election, the Home Office have managed to tick off just about every element of it, including holding it in November, which is almost guaranteed to be dark and poor weather.”
	He continued:
	“So there are significant problems with getting a decent turnout…If they get elected on a 15% turnout it’s going to be pretty shocking.”
	On 13 December 2010, the Home Secretary said at the Dispatch Box:
	“With a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box, police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constable to account for cutting crime.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 708.]
	However, only last month, research commissioned by Victim Support showed that 90% of people questioned had no idea what this role entailed or what it did. On Monday, a survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners suggested that 85% of people either knew “not very much” or “nothing at all” about this election—nearly two in five knew nothing about it whatsoever. The same survey, only this week, showed that the number of people asked who were certain to vote was 15%. The Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), whom I believe is to wind up today’s debate, even though he cannot be bothered to come to hear the opening speeches—

Damian Green: I should say, in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, that he is, as we speak, disengaging himself from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which had summoned him to appear before it. So he is fulfilling a parliamentary obligation at the moment.

David Hanson: The Ministers need to establish the facts on these matters. If the relevant Minister cannot reply to the debate, perhaps another Minister, such as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) could wind up instead.
	Let us put that aside, because the key issue is that the Home Office Minister responsible for crime reduction, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, said at his party conference, only two weeks ago, that a turnout of under 20% would not be acceptable. We face these November elections with awareness still at a very poor level, and we also have a new electoral system, one not normally
	used for these elections. The Electoral Commission has summed up the situation in its most recent briefing in September, where it said:
	“It is important that voters have sufficient information about the voting system, the issues and the candidates that are standing in elections…This will be particularly important for the PCC elections because these are completely new elections, for a new role. In addition they are happening at an unusual time of year, using a voting system (the Supplementary Vote) that most people will be unfamiliar with.”
	It went on to say that although it will be carrying out its functions in highlighting the elections, its
	“preferred option—a booklet with information about the candidates to be sent to voters in each police authority area – is not going to happen.”
	The Government have ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice on turnout for these elections, so I would be interested to know from the Minister what sort of modelling the Home Office has done on turnout and what it feels it might be? When we examine every local election since 2006, which were held in May, we find that there was an average turnout of 37%—that is twice what the Electoral Reform Society suggests turnout will be on 15 November. Its modelling suggests that the turnout will be as low as 18.5%, and it has said that these elections
	“threaten to result in the lowest turnout of any nationwide election in British history.”
	If that is the case, the fault will lie with the Minister.

Julian Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not welcome the fact that the PCC elections will allow local communities finally to have control over the strategy for policing decisions in their areas?

David Hanson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 100 years, but police authorities did have elected members chairing those committees.
	I will talk about the Labour party’s approach to police and crime commissioner elections, but first let me finish looking at where we are in relation to the election on 15 November. Today is 24 October, yet Parliament has not yet approved the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2012, item 21 on today’s Order Paper. That election is to take place three weeks tomorrow. This very day, the answer from the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to a question that I tabled has been published in which it is revealed that his decision not to lay that order has cost you, Madam Deputy Speaker, me and every other Member of this House as taxpayers an extra £350,000. That is the cost of this Government’s failure to lay an order which should have been laid by law—not by choice; by law. It is a legal requirement to have election ballot papers in English and Welsh in Wales, but this Government have not yet laid the relevant order, even though the election is happening three weeks tomorrow. Returning officers in my constituency and throughout Wales have had to print two sets of ballot papers, at a cost of £350,000.

Wayne David: What my right hon. Friend is describing is truly shocking—a huge waste of public money through Government incompetence. Does he agree that this is the first time in electoral history that a Government have had to destroy ballot papers before an election?

David Hanson: The Home Secretary said that she delayed the elections not because of the political fix with the Liberal Democrats, but because more time was needed to plan the elections, yet the order for the elections was only laid on 15 October and has not yet been passed by the House, returning officers are having to print two sets of ballot papers, and we as taxpayers are picking up a bill of £350,000. It is a shambles.
	If £350,000 were the only cost, we should be worried but not overly concerned, but the cost of these elections is £100 million. Cancelling the May elections and putting them on 15 November instead has cost an extra £25 million.

Robert Flello: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice is having to spend more resources and put more staff on its team looking at support for victims, what will be passed down to PCCs and what will not, and what the budget will be. That work has only just started. What a ridiculous waste of money that is, too.

David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which shows what a shambles this is—a shambles that is costing money and that could have been avoided by choosing a different election date.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend will remember from his time campaigning for Tony Lloyd in Denton and Reddish over the summer my constituents’ concern about the 3,000 police jobs that will be lost in Greater Manchester. Would not the money have been better spent securing those jobs?

David Hanson: Indeed it would. The former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), writing in The Daily Telegraph only yesterday, made it clear that the Liberal Democrats tried to sabotage the poll, which is why it is now to be held in November. I think we should send the bill to the constituency office of the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, and ask him to pay the £100 million cost on behalf of the Liberal Democrats who, I remind the House, are standing in only 24 of the 41 areas.
	The Electoral Commission has also said that the central website provided by the Government will not be sufficient because it requires people to access the internet. It is estimated that 7 million adults outside London have not used the internet in the past 12 months, but how do the Government decide to promote their campaign? By putting it only on the website. Which groups are least able to access the internet? People who live in the north, people on low incomes, people over 65, and women. There is disproportionality built in to these elections which the Government should be careful of.

Jim Cunningham: What makes the shambles worse is that we had a referendum in this country on the voting system, yet now we find that the Government intend to use the supplementary vote. Who authorised that?

David Hanson: Indeed. Most people do not know how to use the supplementary vote. That will add to the confusion on 15 November, which will not be helped by the lack of information on the selection. The Minister
	has authorised taxpayer-funded adverts, which are generating fear of crime more than knowledge of the elections. They promote police and crime commissioners as an answer to the awful mess, but they do not mention some of the real challenges that people will have to face. If turnout is low, as I fear it will be but hope it will not be, the only people who have to answer for those mistakes are the Government.
	It is no secret that Labour voted against the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, we would have spent the £100 million on 3,000 new police officers instead. But Parliament has spoken and we intend to fight the election hard. In answer to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), we have decided to stand 41 candidates in 41 police areas. We are more in favour of the policy than are the Liberal Democrats who voted for it, but we will not stand aside and allow Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates to be elected and to act as cheerleaders for the Government. We have an excellent set of candidates and a proud record, as crime fell by 43% in the years of the Labour Government.
	We will fight the elections supporting neighbourhood policing, tackling antisocial behaviour, supporting victims, protecting the operational independence of police, forming local partnerships and opposing the Government’s reckless 20% cuts in policing, which have seen 6,800 officers gone from our front line already. I would be grateful if, in his contribution, the Minister confirmed that 6,800 officers have gone from the front line. If he does, he will be directly contradicting the Prime Minister’s claim that front-line services will not be hit.

Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to increase interest in the elections in November might be to encourage local discussions about the closure of police stations? It is an open secret in the Met and I suspect elsewhere that we are expecting to see a number of police station closures. This parallels the Mayor of London being forced to release the list of fire station closures last week. Does my right hon. Friend expect the list of putative police station closures to be out before those elections?

David Hanson: As it happens, I was in Gloucester yesterday supporting the Labour candidate in Gloucestershire, and one of the main aspects of her campaigning was to keep policing in touch with local people by maintaining police stations in areas where there are high levels of crime. The same will be true in London. That is because Government Members have forced through 20% cuts in the policing budget. That means the loss of 15,000 officers by 2015, which is a conservative estimate. Ultimately, the number of front-line officers lost in the past two years—6,778—is already more than the police inspector intended to date.

Andrew Percy: The right hon. Gentleman is bandying a lot of numbers about. We have a candidate standing in the county formerly known as Humberside who spent £500 million trying to close down our regional fire control centres. That would pay for a large number of police. What does he think about that candidate, Lord Prescott?

David Hanson: I have known Lord Prescott for 37 years, since I went to Hull university. I would trust Lord Prescott with any public service provided in Humberside. He is one of the finest members of the Labour party.
	If the Minister does not believe me, perhaps he will believe the former chief constables of Dyfed Powys and of Gloucestershire, who have been extremely critical of the policing cuts. We proposed 12% cuts in funding. As the Policing Minister, I took that budget through with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), but our proposals would have saved £1 billion for policing, which would have been invested in policing, instead of the present cuts.

Kate Green: Right across the political spectrum in Trafford there is concern about the disproportionate impact of police cuts, as we are facing the largest percentage cut in Greater Manchester. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the concerns is that the way these job losses are falling is that more experienced officers, disillusioned, for example, by what has been decided about their pensions and their pay, are choosing to leave the force, so we are seeing not only a numbers problem, but an experience problem?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Many superintendents at senior management level, who bring a great deal of experience to policing in this country, are being squeezed and losing their posts. This level of cuts is pushing forward a privatisation agenda, and I feel that we need to say clearly—let us be blunt—that we do not want private companies patrolling the public streets of Britain. We want police officers and police community support officers doing that job. The Government should have learnt the lessons of G4S during the Olympics rather than rushing forward with plans for large-scale contracting out. Although public-private partnerships are valuable, we must ensure that new contracts pass tough key tests on value for money, resilience and security, transparency and accountability, and policing by consent.

Andy Slaughter: My right hon. Friend mentions superintendents. In London we are likely to lose seven borough commanders, with large boroughs, including my own, having to merge and have no accountability at the top in local policing. We have already lost neighbourhood team sergeants. If that is the example being set in London by a cutting Tory regime—that is what we have under the Mayor of London and his new deputy mayor for policing, who has already cut services in my borough—then the rest of the country should take note, because they are simply cuts from the top to the bottom of the police service.

David Hanson: Now that the Boris bung has worn off and the election is over, the people of London face real policing cuts, and my hon. Friend is right to point out the real concerns there will be. It is not just a question of policing cuts, because on top of all that the Government, despite their rhetoric, are actually making it harder for police officers to do their job. They are not only cutting budgets, but removing crucial tools the police use to catch offenders and tackle crime, including reducing CCTV and DNA evidence and abolishing antisocial behaviour orders.

John Spellar: My right hon. Friend touches on the important question of police morale and how this will impact on police effectiveness. Does he think that police morale and effectiveness will be improved by the ludicrous suspension of Detective Superintendent Fulcher in Swindon for trying to solve a kidnapping while the victim could still have been alive and for solving two murders? Should he not receive an award for that, rather than being criticised by an out-of-touch judge and hide-bound bureaucrats?

David Hanson: I was also in Swindon yesterday, while campaigning for Clare Moody, Labour’s candidate there, and know that that was a live issue in many discussions. The matter has now been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which will have to look at it, but I recognise my right hon. Friend’s strength of feeling.
	On the question of CCTV, the code of practice we expect next year will certainly reduce the number of CCTV cameras and increase the bureaucracy, which in my view will have an impact on fighting crime. If we look at the DNA database and changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) looked at hard, we see that the Government’s changes will make the database weaker, go against the Home Office’s own evidence and ensure that people who would have been caught and prevented from committing murders or serious sexual offences will now be able to commit them. Our own evidence in July 2010 showed that, under the system proposed by my right hon. Friend, 23,000 people each year would have been on the database who, under the Government’s plans, will not be and so will go on to commit further offences. What has it come to when the so-called party of law and order cuts policing, reduces CCTV, stops people—23,000 of them—being caught as a result of DNA evidence and, lastly, removes ASBOs, which are there to help protect communities against antisocial behaviour.

Margot James: Last year the chief constable of West Midlands police, Chris Sims, appeared before the Home Affairs Committee and made a commitment that his force would be able to deliver continuous improvement in crime reduction at the same time as reducing its budget. The results have borne out his early confidence. We have seen a 13% fall in crime to the year ending June 2012, and at the same time the chief constable has been able to reduce officer numbers by 4% and police staff by 6.2%. I think that is a good result for our taxpayers, who themselves are having to do more for less in the private sector.

David Hanson: rose —

Mr Speaker: Before calling the right hon. Gentleman, I say to the hon. Lady that, first, interventions must be brief and, secondly, I am keen that everyone should get in and so the time limit will have to be reduced later on, fairly soon afterwards, so we really need economy.

David Hanson: I take it from that that the hon. Lady is in favour of 800 police officers being lost from the west midlands police force. I suggest that she go back to Stourbridge and say, “I am very happy to support 800 fewer officers in the west midlands.” Crime fell by 43% during the course of the Labour Government
	because we had record numbers of police officers catching record numbers of criminals, giving them sentences, ensuring that they served them, and reducing reoffending. She will not find much joy in Stourbridge about what has happened in terms of those policies.
	Labour Members believe that the policing settlements for this year, last year and the year before have caused great damage to the communities that we represent, and that next year’s settlement, through the comprehensive spending review, is likely to be much worse. [ Interruption. ] Let me say to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, who is heckling from a sedentary position, that, yes, crime has gone down, and we welcome that. Crime went down by 43% during the time of the Labour Government, and today’s crime figures are reaching the stage whereby the Labour Government’s policies are still having an impact. If he cuts 16,000 police officers, reduces DNA testing, reduces CCTV and scraps ASBOs, he will find crime levelling and possibly increasing in future. He will know about that by the time of the next election and will be judged on it in due course.

Tony Baldry: Before the right hon. Gentleman winds up, will he tell the House where the Labour party now stands on the various Winsor reforms?

David Hanson: Absolutely. We support some aspects of the Winsor reforms, as I have said publicly. [ Interruption. ] I am trying to wind up now; I will happily tell the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber what we will support. We support the fitness test, among other things. We have not supported regional pay. There is a whole range of things; it is a mixed package, and we are happy to discuss it. The key point that he should know is that the 12% reduction in funding that we supported and the 20% reduction that he will have voted for is the real difference between us in this debate on policing, and that is the issue we need to take in hand.
	This Government are wrecking the police service; they are not valuing our officers and are not supporting the police. They will face some real challenges in this election. If the turnout is as we have so far anticipated, which I hope it will not be, the Government will have to give answers about why they have reorganised policing in such a flimsy, disorganised and shambolic way.

Damian Green: I thank the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his kind words at the start of his speech, and I agree with him about the police. This Government recognise the vital job that the police do to protect the public. The courage and dedication of the thousands of men and women who work in police forces across the country make them outstanding. Police officers risk their lives in the line of duty every single day, and this year, more than ever, we have been reminded of the dangers they face. The tragic deaths of PC Ian Dibell, PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes show just how brave our officers can be and the debt of gratitude we owe them all.
	This year, with the Olympic and Paralympic games, we have seen the best of policing, but in the response to phone hacking and Hillsborough real questions have been raised about integrity and accountability, and we are determined to get to grips with both.
	Before I talk about this Government’s positive agenda for policing to introduce reforms to deliver a more professional service responsive to the public and accountable for their actions, I want to address some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Delyn. He reminded us that his party opposed the introduction of police and crime commissioners—the introduction of democracy into police accountability. This is a fascinating conversion, because when Labour was in power the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was then police Minister, said that
	“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.
	He was absolutely right then and the Labour party is absolutely wrong now.
	The right hon. Member for Delyn also had the cheek to complain about privatisation, on which I do not need to quote his Labour predecessors on policing, because I can quote him. In 2009 he said that he was “very relaxed” about police collaboration with the private sector and that the police had Labour’s “blessing to do so”. His remarks should be put in that context; he thought something completely different three years ago.

Alan Johnson: Will the Minister confirm that the previous Government’s consultation was on whether the whole police authority, not just one person, should be elected? Will he also confirm that it was a proper consultation and that because of the outright opposition of parties of all persuasions in local government the proposals were dropped?

Damian Green: The Opposition, who were then in government, expressed a view, changed their mind and have now changed their mind again. I am fascinated that the right hon. Gentleman did not address the issue of privatisation, which started under his tenure as Home Secretary but which I assume he is now prepared to attack as a loyal supporter of his party’s Front-Bench representatives.
	What we have heard so far is the Labour party’s central obsession with spending more money. The right hon. Member for Delyn has made no admission that the Opposition are, in fact, committed to the same level of cuts as this Government, or to any level of cuts at all. There was no honest admission that police numbers would have gone down under their plans, and no expression of regret for the 25,000 police officers stuck in back-room functions under Labour’s top-down management of the police service. Most of all, there was no apology for causing the financial mess that led to these cuts in the first place. We have had no transparency or apology from the Labour party, and just one solution—spend more money. It is as clear as ever that Labour is not learning and is not capable of learning.
	We cannot even credit the Opposition with being consistent on that point. As we have heard, the police and crime commissioner elections will deliver accountable policing that responds to public demands. Labour Front Benchers are arguing for both more and less spending at the same time. They complain about what they describe as the waste of money on holding elections, which is an interesting attitude for a democratic party, at the same
	time as they argue that we should spend £30 million more on publicising the elections. I suppose that they could, with intellectual coherence, hold one or other of those views, but they cannot hold both of them at once, as they appear to want to do.

Bridget Phillipson: What is the Minister’s prediction for the election turnout on 15 November and what does he regard as necessary to give the candidates a mandate?

Damian Green: I will address the PCC elections in a moment. Unlike the right hon. Member for Delyn, I want to start my speech by talking about policing, which is what this debate is supposed to be about.
	At the start of the spending review, the service was spending more than £14 billion a year. It is only right that the police make their contribution to the savings that are needed, while ensuring that the quality of service that the public receive is maintained and, where possible, improved. This can be done and it is being done. By changing the way in which police forces work, getting officers out of the back office and on to the front line and stripping out bureaucratic processes, officers can be freed up to do the job they joined to do—to fight crime and protect the public. This is what forces up and down the country are doing. The House does not need to take my word for it; the independent inspectorate of constabulary has said so.

Jonathan Ashworth: Not only is the Minister cutting more than 300 police officers from the Leicestershire force by 2015; he is also cutting back-room staff, which will force more officers into the back room. The Minister is a reasonable man, so will he give me a prediction? By 2015, will crime go up or down in Leicester?

Damian Green: I do not need to give the hon. Gentleman a prediction, because I can tell him what is happening to crime in Leicestershire. Crime in Leicestershire is down 5% under this Government and I hope that he will welcome that change.
	The inspectorate has confirmed what Ministers have said all along—that the front line of policing is being protected. We know that chief constables are prioritising the front line, because they plan to increase the proportion of officers on the front line from 83% in March 2010 to 89% in March 2015. Protecting the front line does not mean staying exactly the same, it is about the service that the public receive. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that the service is being maintained, and I hope that Opposition Members will have the politeness to listen to it.

Andrew Percy: May I take the Minister back to policing numbers? My dearly valued colleagues from the Labour party in Humberside will be able to confirm that police numbers there fell in 2007, for the very same reasons that he has outlined here today, and there was zero opposition among local Labour politicians.

Damian Green: As ever, my hon. Friend points out the inadequacy of Labour arguments in Humberside and elsewhere. Since he brings up the subject of numbers, I am happy to tell him that in this Government’s time in office, crime in Humberside has fallen by 12%—a particularly good performance, I think he will agree.

Lisa Nandy: That is all very well, but will the Minister actually answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) put to him? How are front line police officers expected to be able to get out on to the streets and be visible to the public if the back-office functions upon which they rely so deeply are being cut?

Damian Green: I would guess from all I know of the hon. Lady that she opposes any use of the private sector in back-office functions, but that is the way to release warranted police officers, who are trained to be on the streets. Her party goes back and forth; in government it was in favour of the use of the private sector, but in opposition it has retreated to its comfort zone and opposed it. Under both the previous Government and the current one, many police forces have shown—

Stephen McCabe: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: May I finish answering the previous intervention before I come to the hon. Gentleman?
	Many police forces have shown that one way to get more officers on the front line is through more flexible and better use of back-office and middle-office staff. Now I have pleasure in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Stephen McCabe: I am extremely grateful to the Minister and apologise for interrupting.
	Given the importance that the Minister attaches to the democratisation that comes with commissioners, does he accept that where commissioners have a mandate from the public to oppose certain types of privatisation, whether in the back office or the front office, the Government should respect that?

Damian Green: Yes, I do. We are in favour of democracy, and I accept that it is possible that police and crime commissioners will be elected who will do things with which I disagree. They will be democratically elected and have the mandate to do what they do, and if they get it wrong they will answer to their electorate in four years’ time. That is the point of democracy.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: May I make some progress? I am conscious of your warning about going on too long, Mr Speaker.
	The Opposition said that because of the cuts, emergency response times would increase, but they have held up. They said that neighbourhood policing would suffer, but there are more neighbourhood officers now than there were in May 2010. Most importantly of all—it is at the heart of the debate—they said that crime would go up, and they were wrong. Crime has gone down by 10% under this Government. That is the situation across key crime types, with recorded violence down 13%, burglary down 7%, criminal damage down 22%, vehicle crime down 15%, robbery down 5% and knife crime down 9%.
	Much has been made of the situation in the west midlands. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) will wish to know that crime there is down by an impressive 13% since the election. I hope that west midlands Members of all parties will welcome that.
	Labour has been proved wrong on all its key claims. Police reform is working, and crime is falling. I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to point that out today. They were wrong to claim that forces faced 20% cuts. No force faces cuts of that level.

Gareth Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports by HMIC, so he will presumably be familiar with the concerns that it made clear earlier this year about the future performance of the Metropolitan police, given the cuts that the Mayor of London is likely to push through. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is even more concern, particularly in the suburbs of London, about rumours of significant closures of police stations and custody suites and mergers of borough commands?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got with the democratic project yet. As he knows, policing in London is the responsibility of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. The hon. Gentleman had his chance earlier this year to put his arguments against the Mayor of London’s crime policy, but those arguments failed. The people of London voted to re-elect the current Mayor of London, and he has an excellent Deputy Mayor who is dealing with those matters.

Alan Johnson: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I will give way one more time as the right hon. Gentleman is a former Home Secretary.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister, but I thought I just heard him say that there are no cuts of 20%. In his speech last Monday, the Prime Minister said,
	“in real terms, central police spending cuts are around 20 per cent”.
	Does the Minister disagree with the Prime Minister?

Damian Green: No. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say. The claim is, I think, that forces are facing 20% cuts, but no force is facing cuts of that level. As he knows as well as anyone in the country, the police service receives about a quarter of its income from the police precept element of council tax, the exact proportion—[ Interruption. ] I am glad that I am able to educate the Labour party about how the police are funded in this country. That funding is not all from the Home Office; some of it comes from the police precept. As the right hon. Gentleman and, I hope, the Opposition Front Bench know—although there is no evidence that they do—the exact proportion that comes from the precept varies from force to force, and the level at which it is set is, I stress, a matter for individual police and crime commissioners to decide. In short, no force has seen anything like a 20% cash reduction.
	We on this side of the House have long argued that there is no simple link between police numbers and crime rates, and I am happy that that view is shared by the Home Affairs Committee. The figures I have quoted show that that view is correct and widely accepted—the one place it has not yet been accepted is inside the Labour party.
	Let me turn to the elections for police and crime commissioners. On this side of the House, we are getting behind our candidates and campaigning hard to ensure
	that the elections are a success and that the public get the PCCs they deserve—hard-working, dedicated people who want to deliver for their communities and improve policing. Opposition Members should decide whether they support or oppose the elections. I assume that they support them, and I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Delyn has said that he does. A huge number of former Labour Ministers are standing, determined to make 15 November the night of the living retreads.
	The confusion on the Opposition Benches is summed up with a pleasing touch of nostalgia by a dispute between Blair and Prescott. Prescott is having an argument with a new Blair, Lord Blair, who is arguing that people should not vote—I think that is disgraceful, and I hope the Labour party will agree that to tell people not to vote in a democratic election is deplorable. [ Interruption. ] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Delyn disagrees with Lord Blair. I hope that will continue and that everyone in the Labour party will condemn Lord Blair for what he said, not least because, as we have seen in recent articles, Lord Prescott is—of course—campaigning in his unique and energetic fashion around Humberside.
	The introduction of PCCs is the most significant democratic reform of policing ever. It will introduce greater transparency and accountability to a service of which we are all rightly proud, but which can sometimes be too distant from the public it serves and fail to reflect adequately their concerns and priorities. As I told the House in a debate last week, only 7% of the public know what a police authority is. That figure represents a huge failure in democratic accountability, because it is the job of a police authority—as it will be of a PCC—to spend the public’s money in a way that guarantees that the police in that area are doing what the public need. It is impossible to do that when 93% of the public do not even know what police authorities are.

Wayne David: rose —

Bridget Phillipson: rose —

Damian Green: I am spoilt for choice but I think that the hon. Lady has had a go, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Wayne David: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State in the Home Department who said at the Liberal Democrat conference that a turnout out of 20% in elections for PCCs would, “not be good”?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend will speak later in the debate, and can no doubt speak for himself. Up to now, and until next month, the public have been unable to do anything about the failures of police authorities. PCCs will have a clear incentive to perform better than that, because if they fail to represent their communities, engage properly and deliver on their priorities, the public will tell them what they think at the ballot box.
	Policing matters to the public and people want their forces to respond to their concerns. The advertising campaign the Home Office has been running this month will be seen by 85% of the public. It tells them how to get more information—[ Interruption. ] Labour Members have problems with people getting information online, but people can get information online at www.choosemypcc.org.uk, and anyone who wants a
	printed booklet can get one by calling the freephone number from the advert. Everyone registered to vote will also get the number on a polling card through their door, and the Electoral Commission is writing to each household with information on how to vote. Whatever the Opposition want to say, no one who wants information in the elections will be denied it.

David Hanson: Does the Minister have any indication of how many people have received a booklet, and how many people have phoned and registered an interest in receiving one?

Damian Green: As the website goes online only tomorrow, it will be quite difficult for people to phone now. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, nominations closed only this week, and the final day for people withdrawing from the election was today, so the candidates will have their information out only tomorrow.
	Many hon. Members have asked how many people will turn out to vote. We do not know, but however many do so, every PCC will have more legitimacy to make important decisions on what the police do and how the local budget is spent than unelected, unaccountable and largely invisible police authorities.

Julian Smith: The number of chief constables and ex-chief constables who face criminal investigations is going into double digits—I am thinking of Grahame Maxwell in north Yorkshire and the problems in Cleveland. Will chief constables be held to account much better under the new regime?

Damian Green: It is extremely important that chief constables are held to account, but equally important is the transparency with which they are held to account. That will now be the job of visible, public and democratically elected figures. Among the many bodies to benefit from this advent of democracy will be senior police officers. Many institutions in this country have had to become more transparent in recent years—not least the House. In the long run, it does the institution good to be held to account more publicly.
	The policy fits in to wider police reform. For too long before this Government came to office, the Home Office interfered too much in local policing and cared too little about national threats. The introduction of PCCs is a step along the road to reversing that trend, and the creation of the National Crime Agency to focus on serious and organised crime nationally is another. That did not exist under the previous Government, but it should have, and it will exist under this Government. PCCs will not just focus just on their local area, but will have a duty to co-operate in dealing with national threats under the new strategic policing requirement, which this Government also introduced.
	We are determined that the police will have the powers they need to tackle crime. That includes enhancing professionalism with the creation of the new college of policing. We have today announced that Chief Constable Alex Marshall of Hampshire police will be its chief executive. Key to the college’s work will be the sharing of best practice and research into what works at a local level.
	We believe in local solutions to local problems and a departure from the central direction and edicts of the past. The antisocial behaviour order was typical of the
	previous top-down approach that too often failed communities. Fifty-seven per cent. of ASBOs issued up to the end of 2011 were breached at least once, and more than 40% were breached more than once. It simply did not work, which is why we have set out new proposals in our white paper, “Putting Victims First”, for faster, more flexible and effective powers that will provide a real deterrent to perpetrators and better protect victims and communities.
	We also believe that a balance must be struck between enabling the police to use vital modern investigative techniques, such as DNA and CCTV, and protecting the rights of innocent members of the public not to be under constant and unregulated surveillance. That is why, through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have put in place a series of sensible and proportionate controls on the use of those techniques. But we are not weakening our response to crime. We are not restricting CCTV—it is an important tool but not the only one—and we will continue to take the DNA of the guilty, including, for the first time, of prisoners, rather than that of innocent people. So we are taking a balanced approach that protects the public and punishes the guilty.
	Overall, our reforms add up to a realignment of policing in this country that will free the police from central targets and bureaucracy and will place power back in the hands of local people. The introduction of PCCs will make policing more accountable and responsive, while driving forces to become efficient and to improve continually. The end result will be a trusted, responsive and professional police service that will be continually improving to cut crime.
	The motion is backward looking. It could have been written by the Labour party in 2005. Its approach to fighting crime amounts to spending more money, tighter control from Whitehall and ever more interference by the state in the lives of ordinary, decent people. It did not work when they were in government, and that is why this Government are working for a more accountable, more transparent and more professional police service. This is what will lead to further falls in crime, and that is why the House should reject this ill-conceived motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. An eight-minute limit will apply to each of the first two Back-Bench speeches, and thereafter, in the interests of trying to accommodate the level of interest, the time limit will fall to six minutes.

Alan Johnson: The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), whom I welcome to his new position, finished his speech by saying that Labour’s policies did not work in government. I remind him that we were the only Government in the modern era—going back to the first world war—who presided over a reduction in crime. That is to say that the amount of crime was less when we left office than when we assumed office. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who was an excellent Policing Minister, understated the case. The Home Office statistics published in July 2010, from this Government, showed that overall crime fell by 50%, violent crime by 55% and domestic violence by 64%. The chances of being a victim of crime fell from a peak
	of 40% under the Tory Government to 21.5% under us. The murder rate in London was the lowest since I was wearing a tank-top and flares in the early 1970s.

Tom Greatrex: Last week?

Alan Johnson: Indeed; It was a retro week.
	We can now all celebrate that success. The Conservative party—I do not include the Liberal Democrats in this criticism—argued year after year that the statistics were wrong. I remember the Prime Minister standing at the Dispatch Box in opposition saying that crime was not falling but rising, and that when they came into power they would change how the statistics were correlated, but they have done absolutely nothing. They have changed the name of the British crime survey to the England and Wales crime survey, but the statistics are collected in exactly the same way.
	That is why the Prime Minister was able to celebrate a 6% fall in crime this year in his tribute speech to that great woman, “Laura Norder”, on Monday. That figure was based on exactly the same formulation of statistics that he once criticised. We should recognise that the momentum of falling crime seems to have continued into this Government, whereas crime doubled under the previous Tory Government between 1979 and 1997, with violent crime increasing by 168% and burglary by 405%. The downward trend has been maintained. It is crucial that all our constituents understand why that has happened and how we can ensure that crime and disorder continue to fall.
	When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he held a meeting with civil servants in the Home Office. They told him that if the economy was successful, crime would increase, and that if the economy was unsuccessful, crime would increase. No matter which way the economy went, people believed that it would inevitably rise. That counsel of despair convinced successive Home Secretaries until Michael Howard’s appointment that rising crime was an inevitability. The economy is weak now but crime has continued to fall, just as it did in the 2008-09 recession when it went down by 9%. We can compare that with the recession in the ’90s, when it went up by 16%. There is no doubt that advances in technology have helped. Car thefts have reduced dramatically thanks to computerised security systems and CCTV has been an effective tool—it is of course not the whole answer—as has the DNA database.
	Police reforms have made the biggest contribution to the dramatic reduction in crime. People trot out the tired old phrase, “The police are the last unreformed public service,” but anyone who has been a Member of this House over the past 20 years will have seen a huge change in policing. The principal change has been the move away from a reactive force, whose main preoccupation was to respond to crimes that had already been committed, to a force with a role more in keeping with Robert Peel’s original concept of a police force, whose primary objective was the prevention of crime and the maintenance of what he described as “public tranquillity”. It was the “Life on Mars” culture of the 1970s that took police away from communities and off the streets and challenged the Peel ethos, whereas the introduction of the dreadfully named crime and disorder reduction partnerships and neighbourhood policing—a huge change in how the police operated—did the most to restore it.
	Over 15 years, we have moved from a police philosophy that stated that antisocial behaviour and low-level crime was nothing to do with them to a recognition that the police have an important role to play in working with other agencies to tackle such behaviour, which has a far greater impact on people’s perception of crime than some more high-profile offences. We have moved from an era in which domestic violence was considered to be nothing to do with the police and to be a matter for the adversaries to sort out to its being a major focus of attention for police forces across the country. Plenty of evidence suggests that that concentration on domestic violence has had a far wider impact on the reduction in other crimes.
	In that context, I believe the Government have made a mistake in cutting the number of warranted officers. The work the police do on crime prevention in schools, in homes, as part of family intervention projects and in youth clubs and hostels will suffer as a result of those cuts and the partnerships that require the police to work together with local authorities, the NHS and the voluntary sector to tackle the underlying causes of crime will be placed in jeopardy. I predict that such cuts will eventually feed through to the crime statistics, to the detriment of our constituents across the country.
	The Minister mentioned privatisation, and in the context of what is happening in Lincolnshire, the west midlands and Surrey I am bemused and amazed that the Home Office has not stated categorically that the tasks of patrolling our streets, the investigation of offences, and arrest—together with the use of firearms and the control of public disorder—must remain with police officers. Of course there can be co-operation with the private sector in other spheres, but that is what the police want to see and the reassurance has not been given.

Julian Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the four Yorkshire forces could do much more to share and reduce costs? In his role as a local MP, will he call on those four forces to get their acts together?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I do. I completely agree and that was in our White Paper when I was Home Secretary in November 2010. I also believe that there are too many police constabularies. Charles Clarke tried and failed to reduce the number of constabularies, and we need to do it.
	The late, great Conservative head of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, said that through the police and crime commissioners the Government were introducing
	“a parallel and potentially conflicting system with a competing mandate”.
	I believe that is true. I do not agree with Lord Blair, but I think that the public will register their disquiet by failing to turn up at the ballot box. I sincerely believe that after November’s elections, the Government will need to rethink the question and that part of the solution might be to recreate a form of machinery to run the police authorities that represents all parts of the patch. That should not be done by only one person and, if we elect anyone, we should elect the chair of that organisation. I also think that there should be closer
	working on prisons, probation and fire services so that there can be joined-up accountability for a wide range of these issues.
	I genuinely welcome the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to the Dispatch Box. I think he is a good Minister. He had an unfortunate experience with the police a few years ago, which always reminds me of the Tom Wolfe quote:
	“A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.”
	The right hon. Gentleman has a huge role to play in improving the relationship between the Government and the police. It is in a terrible state, and I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman works hard, with all the charm for which he is famous, he could make a great contribution to dealing with crime and disorder in this country.

Andrew Jones: The motion before us makes the typical Labour mistake of looking at inputs rather than outputs, and looking at the process rather than what the process is designed to achieve. It does not mention that crime is coming down or that there are fewer victims of crime. The shadow Minister gave a fulsome tribute—I think correctly—to the men and women of our police services; indeed, the Minister did, too. The motion, however, fails to give police the recognition they deserve for the way they have delivered crime reduction—by doing more for less.
	Let me start with a significant police success. Crime in England and Wales has fallen by 6% compared with last year. In my area, North Yorkshire, it has fallen by 10%— a fantastic result. Of particular note is the 27% reduction in robbery. I would therefore like to put on record my praise and thanks to the members of North Yorkshire police who have delivered this reduction.
	While we are on North Yorkshire matters, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the excellent work of a police charity based in Harrogate. I refer to Police Treatment Centres, a charity with two treatment centres—one in Harrogate and the other in Auchterarder in the Ochil and South Perthshire constituency—where serving and retired police officers can recover from illness or injury by receiving care and treatment. I know we all remember that our policemen and women do brave things, which can sometimes mean getting injured and needing more care. The charity serves the forces of northern England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, plus the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear police and the Ministry of Defence police, and looked after nearly 4,000 people last year. I have visited the Harrogate site several times so I have seen their first-class facilities; they do a fantastic job. I was very pleased to see the Government recognise the importance of the charity’s work earlier this year, with the award of a £500,000 grant for the refurbishment of part of the Harrogate site. I thank the Minister for his support.
	We are, of course, in a period of significant change in our police services, and one of the changes is the arrival of police and crime commissioners. I support the arrival of police and crime commissioners. I do so because they deal with the invisibility and lack of accountability of the police authorities that they replace. Law and order is an issue that matters hugely to voters, but with police authorities voters did not get their say. The police and crime commissioners will be voices for the public, for
	victims and for the vulnerable; they will be strong local voices empowered to deal with important local concerns. Our PCC candidate in North Yorkshire is Julia Mulligan, and I know she has had a successful track record in business and community work, which I think makes for the right qualities for a first-class commissioner.
	The motion says that the Electoral Reform Society is worried about voter turnout in the PCC elections. I would say to Opposition Members that the Electoral Reform Society is not always a source of wisdom. For example, it was strongly in favour of the yes vote in the referendum we had last year. It is fair to say that there is not yet huge, widespread awareness of these elections, but that is always a feature of new things when, by definition, people have no experience of the benefits they can bring. A TV advertising campaign will boost that awareness, and there will be candidates out on the doorstep and campaign teams out delivering leaflets. The more these elections are talked about, the better the turnout will be, so at least something good may come from this debate.
	I thought that Lord Blair’s intervention over the weekend was misguided. He said that people should not vote in these elections because the areas that form the geography for the police and crime commissioners were too large. However, they are the same areas as those that are served by a single police force led by a single chief constable. I suspect that Lord Blair was really saying that he did not want the public to have much of a role in policing—that being a commissioner was too complex for people. I think that is absolute nonsense. I also think that the more he talks about the elections, the more he will boost turnout by ensuring that they are in the news.
	As I said earlier, the motion is typical of the Labour party in that it refers to how much the Government spend rather than to what they achieve. In policy area after policy area, year after year, Labour defines success as spending more. We do not have a £1 trillion debt because a Government could not find ways in which to spend public money. The problem is that there is always a way of spending public money, and defining success by how much is spent leads to pressure to spend, spend, spend. The motion perpetuates that mistake.
	I do not often agree with the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke—especially given his remark that he could visit Harrogate in order to spend some time on the beach—but I agree with what he said on one occasion:
	“We need to look beyond police numbers alone. The debate should be about what you do and how you do it, not just how many of you there are to do it.”
	The key measure of police success is falling crime. In our country the chance of being a victim of crime is the lowest for 30 years, which suggests that the Government reforms are right. Resources are being taken from back office to front line, and the proportion of officers who are involved in front-line roles has increased from 83% to 89%. We are seeing the scrapping of targets and bureaucracy. I am sure that, over the past few years, we have all spoken to police officers who have been keen to tell us about the bureaucracy that they face. It is estimated that the cuts in bureaucracy will save 3 million police hours a year.
	The Government are also helping the police forces to work together. Shared procurement and IT can save millions. In my area of North Yorkshire and the Humber—
	which is also represented by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)—the police forces are working together on a shared vehicle procurement and management programme. That alone is saving £7 million.
	My main point, however, concerns the way in which the links between the police and the public are being rebuilt. We see that in the arrival of the democratic accountability of police and crime commissioners, and we see it in the increase in the number of police community support officers and police delivering neighbourhood policing. The numbers have risen by 2,300 in two years. I have met almost all the PCSOs in my constituency, and I have been impressed by their work. I know that they work and communicate well with local communities, and that they are popular figures on the streets of Harrogate and Knaresborough.
	I think that this is a period of change, but I also think that it is an exciting time for our police. On the key measure of success, they are performing well. They deserve our support, and they certainly have mine.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. The six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now on.

Stephen McCabe: Let me begin by congratulating the men and women of West Midlands police on the great achievements that they have made despite very tough economic circumstances.
	I think that the problem with the cuts argument is that neither the public nor the police believe the Government on the issue. The constant denial about numbers in the face of people’s own evidence means that the Government cannot be believed. Earlier today, we saw the Minister dance on the head of a pin when discussing the percentage scale of the cuts. People know fine well that he is wriggling.
	I believe that, in fact, the public are with us on the issue. They think that the Government are going too far and too fast. They are going too far in opting for 20% cuts when the safe level, which we would have supported, was 12%, and they are going too fast in front-loading the cuts, which means that the potential for efficiency gains over a number of years has been wiped out. That has been compounded by the application of the formula under which Surrey, which has the lowest crime levels in the country, suffers a third of the cuts that we suffer in the west midlands. The position is made even worse by a funding approach which means that the funds for the West Midlands force are capped at £25 million a year below the amount provided for by the Government’s own formula, while Surrey receives £6 million a year more than the formula suggests that it needs. The previous police Minister promised to review that, with the hope of actually bringing about some change. I hope that the current Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will take on that challenge and try to bring a bit of fairness into the application of the formula.
	I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will respect democratically elected police and crime commissioners, because in the west midlands not a single candidate who responded to the Police Federation questionnaire—in fairness, the ones who responded are
	the ones most likely to win—said that they would support the Government’s present privatisation agenda. Bob Jones, the Labour candidate, has made it absolutely clear that he will not support the present business partnering arrangements that West Midlands police have been looking at and that he will not give any juicy contracts to G4S.
	What has gone wrong is that the Government have failed to recognise things on two fronts. First, they are sapping the morale of ordinary police officers. Let us forget about what the Police Federation is saying: ordinary rank-and-file officers are stopping me in the supermarket and at meetings—indeed, anywhere in the constituency—to tell me how fed up they are and how much they think the Government are against them. The Government are sapping morale with a constant-change agenda that looks as if they are against the police. Simultaneously, the Government are talking up the rights of what are rapidly becoming private monopolies. Companies such as G4S, Capita and Cerco are running around gobbling up public sector contracts and smaller businesses. Those companies are becoming too big. They are unregulated private monopolies. The combination of that and the constant attacks on the police is sapping police morale. I say this to the Minister: the figures might look good now, but we cannot go on like this.
	I was also a bit surprised to hear the Minister trumpeting the demise of antisocial behaviour orders. He has been successful—in the west midlands there has been a 90% reduction in the first six months of this year, compared with 2010—but there is nothing being put in their place. Things are getting worse. Let us look at what the public are saying. Thousands of people responded to my survey in Selly Oak. Antisocial behaviour is their concern. They want the police and the courts to have the powers to tackle it. What the Minister has succeeded in doing is creating a vacuum.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am enjoying his speech immensely. Yesterday Birmingham announced that it is looking at a huge number of cuts, in many ways mimicking Stoke-on-Trent and the huge cuts to our local authority. Does he agree that as local authorities lose their resources, there is a knock-on effect on the work that the police are able to do in tackling antisocial behaviour and other issues?

Stephen McCabe: That is absolutely true. The danger is that partnerships are being weakened rather than strengthened.
	I would like to finish on a slightly more generous note to the Minister. I am pleased to see that the Government have moved somewhat on the question of police and crime commissioners. It is right to broaden the brief so that we think more about victims and the delivery of justice, rather than the narrow management and control of the police, which was more prevalent during the passage of the legislation. As police and crime commissioners develop that work, I hope that they will not be constrained by unnecessary direction from the centre or the imposition of financial controls that make it impossible to do the work, because in that respect the Minister is on to something that the public probably support.

Henry Bellingham: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). It was good to hear him end on a positive note as well.
	If the official Opposition had had their way, this would have been a debate about my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Events have moved on, of course, but I would like to pay tribute to him for the work he did as Secretary of State for International Development. He was a truly outstanding and inspirational DFID Secretary. He spent five years in opposition preparing for that brief, and when he got the brief in government, he was a huge, huge success and admired throughout the world.
	I want to focus briefly on Norfolk constabulary, and pay tribute to the police officers across the county. Although they are facing difficult times, they have turned themselves into an incredibly effective small police force, which is now probably better placed than most other forces in the country.
	There has been a reduction in the number of officers. On 1 April 2010 there were 1,650 police officers and 275 police community support officers. On 1 April 2012, however, there were 1,530 police officers and 15 fewer PCSOs, and by 1 April 2015 the number of police officers will fall to 1,500. Although that obviously presents challenges, I want to underline the fact that there has been a quite superb improvement in the force’s performance.
	Crime has fallen. In the last year—2010-11 to 2011-12 —burglary crime was down 20%, robbery was down 11.4% and vehicle theft crime was down 26%. Had serious sexual offences not gone up by 20%, overall crime would have come down by much more than 2.4%. In the year to date, 2011-12 to 2012-13, serious sexual offences have fallen 24%, theft of motor vehicles is down by a staggering 29%, robbery is down 31% and priority criminal damage is down 37%. We are therefore on target to reduce crime by almost 13%. That is an extraordinary performance.
	The point that those things underscore is that it is possible to reduce the number of police officers in a time of great austerity, but they do not have to be taken out of the front line. It is not necessary to undermine in any way the integrity of the front line. Norfolk constabulary has reduced bureaucracy and the number of officers in back-up or admin jobs. It has got more officers into the front line and it is reducing crime. I want to pay tribute to all the police officers who have contributed to this excellent record, and in particular Chief Constable Phil Gormley. He is leading a force that now has high morale, in spite of the changes that are taking place.
	Another important part of our strategy is collaboration with Suffolk constabulary. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), talked about the reforms during Charles Clarke’s tenure at the Home Office. They did not succeed because they were too large a step forward at that time. In Norfolk, there has been a steady, pragmatic, common-sense approach to collaboration. At regional level, there has been sensible collaboration through the eastern region special operations unit. A joint structure has been put in place with Suffolk for collaborative policing, covering protective services, justice services and business support. The total
	cost is now £44.5 million. To put that in context, the total amount spent by Norfolk constabulary is £120 million and Suffolk spent £92 million. Some 502 officers are now working on this collaborative project, and there are 48 civilian staff.
	In protective services, there are now six major units covering serious and organised crime, forensic investigation and intelligence, as well as the major investigation team, specialist operations and the vulnerable people directorate. In justice services, Norfolk and Suffolk now have a fully collaborative unit comprising criminal justice services, custody services and a new custody investigation unit. There is also a joint Norfolk and Suffolk criminal justice board. In business support, £9.8 million has been saved across the forces. There are now joint departments covering estates, ICT, procurement and human resources.
	Are the public pleased with the performance of Norfolk constabulary? Norfolk constabulary has the 17th lowest budget in the country, yet it has the fifth highest detection rate, the second highest overall value-for-money rating and is third in the country in terms of public satisfaction.
	I support the changes and the election of police and crime commissioners. I wish the new PCC all the best. He or she will take over a force that is in excellent heart.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I am keen to put on the record my concern about the misguided and cavalier approach of this Government to matters of policing and public safety.
	I speak as a London MP, and I want to draw attention to the significant impact that this Government’s policing policies could have on law and order in the capital. Since the coalition came to power, the number of police officers on London’s streets has fallen by 463. Many more support staff have been cut, and we know that between now and 2015 a further 1,000 officers are likely to go. London is not an easy city to police; the Metropolitan police have a tough job, and it is being made harder by the coalition Government. I believe that we are wasting money on electing police and crime commissioners when we would be better off spending it on preventing crime from happening in the first place.
	In the past six months, I have met the parents of children who have died on the streets of London as a result of knife crime. So far this year, seven teenagers have been murdered in the capital, and I have met the parents of three of them. Nathaniel Brown and Kevin Ssali both tragically lost their lives in my constituency this summer—both were fatally stabbed—and earlier this year, my 17-year-old constituent Kwame Ofosu-Asare was murdered in Brixton. My corner of south-east London is, by and large, a safe place to live, and I recognise that progress is being made by the Met’s new gang crime command unit, but when I sit with parents who have just lost their child I know that there is so much more to do to tackle the challenges presented by knives and violence.
	That is why I just do not understand why we are wasting nearly £100 million on elections for police and crime commissioners when that money could be used to tackle serious youth violence. Why are we spending money on elections that few people want and few people really understand? Why do we not use that money to
	fund police officers or, better still, to fund projects that have a track record of preventing young people from turning to violence or getting caught up in gangs in the first place? Why do we not use the money to ensure that those involved in lifestyles that can have such tragic consequences have a way out?
	Between 2011 and 2013, £18 million has been committed by the Home Office to tackle knife, gun and gang crime —a fifth of what is being spent on the elections for police and crime commissioners. How does the Minister justify that to the families I have met whose lives have been devastated by knives? Sadly, I have made these arguments in this place before and the Government have refused to listen. I believe that they have got their priorities wrong, and so we find ourselves where we are today.
	This is not just about what could have been done with the money being wasted on police and crime commissioners; it is also about what is happening to existing police budgets. The speed and severity of cuts to the police in London are being felt by the community I represent. These cuts have not just resulted in fewer police officers; they have meant also that budgets are being squeezed for the sort of work being carried out by community projects that can make a real difference to the problems I have been talking about. Two weeks ago, I visited XLP, a charity based in my constituency and operating across London to tackle gangs and violent youth crime. Its people told me of budgets just drying up, both within the police and within local authorities, yet the need for their work has not reduced. When I speak with young people in my constituency, I am often struck by the seriousness of the concerns they express about their own safety. Some talk about just not going to certain parts of London because they “will get stabbed”. If I quote falling national crime statistics to them, they look at me as if I am mad—it is so far removed from the reality of their lives.
	Before I conclude, I want to say something about the huge financial challenge facing the Met police. An HMIC report in the summer suggested that the Met needs to find a further £232 million-worth of savings by 2015. That is not an insignificant sum. Since this Government came to power, the number of safer neighbourhood team sergeants in my constituency has been almost halved. Those were the police officers I met out in the community—not sergeants sat behind desks, but a visible and valued presence in our neighbourhoods. I am worried that the financial challenges the Met faces will result in less visible, less accessible policing and fewer people feeling safe. We know that some police stations are threatened with closure and that some boroughs are having to share commanders. The Met wants to introduce its so-called new model of local policing which, we are told, will put police back out on to the streets, but given the halving of the number of sergeants in my neighbourhood, I am not convinced.
	The Met police do an incredibly difficult job and, on the whole, they do it very well. It is wrong that this Government should make their job so much harder when so many people’s lives and livelihoods depend upon them.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to take part in this afternoon’s debate and to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi
	Alexander). I acknowledge that different parts of the country face different challenges. Some of the issues she outlined have been with us for some time, and some police authorities some time ago took a more long-term view of the likelihood that resources would start to decrease, rather than continue to increase. Wiltshire police, in which police authority area my constituency sits, took some difficult decisions a few years back, and although, like the rest of the country, the force is having to bear its share of a reduction in income, it is right of me to point out, with some pride, that its commitment to neighbourhood policing remains unabashed. In fact, the number of police community support officers, who form a key part of the delivery of neighbourhood policing, has increased in the past year by 14.2%, or 19 officers, which is testament to Wiltshire police’s commitment to neighbourhoods such as the one in Swindon that I represent.
	The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who is no longer in his place, mentioned his visit yesterday. I am sure that he heard those encouraging statistics and would join me in paying tribute to the work of the police authority, one of whose members, Angus Macpherson, is the Conservative candidate in the police and crime commissioner election next month. I have been working hard with that candidate to get the message across about the importance of the elections and to give as much information as possible to local residents about what the new commissioners will do—not just dealing with police strategy, but commissioning services that I believe will lead to greater use of crime prevention and diversion techniques. I hope they will also lead to the extension of the principles of restorative justice further into our communities, on which much work is already being done in the Swindon area, although time does not permit me to speak at length on that subject today.
	I rise primarily to raise a case that has already been mentioned—one that resulted last Friday in the conviction and life imprisonment of the murderer Christopher Halliwell. He murdered Sian O’Callaghan in Swindon last year, after picking her up in his taxi outside a nightclub. He has been dealt with properly for that heinous crime, and I pay tribute to Sian’s family for their dignity throughout the proceedings and for the way in which they coped with the awful reality confronting them after Sian’s abduction and the subsequent discovery of her body.
	The case does not end there, however. During the course of the police investigation, a second murder was disclosed by the defendant, Christopher Halliwell. He has not been brought to justice for that murder because of errors made in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 guidelines to be followed by all police officers during criminal investigations. That means that the family of Becky Godden, whose body was discovered by police officers during the search for Sian O’Callaghan, have not received justice or any degree of closure and are facing that awful reality day by day.
	I will not comment on the conduct of the individual police officer. He is a senior officer. There is an Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into his conduct. Putting myself in his shoes for a moment—putting aside my legal hat, having been a criminal barrister for 20 years—I can entirely understand that in the heat of the moment, when it was thought that Sian O’Callaghan
	may still be alive, that officer thought he was acting in the best interests of the safety of Sian and in the interests of finding out more from Halliwell.
	In the light of the grim experience of this case, it would be timely for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, code C in particular, which applies in this case, to be looked at again by the Home Office to make sure that it is fully up to date and has taken into account developments in technology that could well have assisted the police in the conduct of the investigation of the case. The codes of practice are not tablets of stone. They are regularly updated in the light of experience, and I believe that after this particularly serious case with serious consequences not only for the family of Becky Godden, but for the wider community who are so concerned and were so traumatised by what happened, it is time that we had another look.
	I pay tribute to Becky Godden’s family for their dignity, and I pledge my support to them to do whatever it takes to make sure that they can find justice for the loss and the murder of their daughter.

Karl Turner: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who speaks with conviction on behalf of his constituents and with great knowledge, as a fellow criminal lawyer.
	This week we have had another non-announcement from the Prime Minister—“tough but intelligent” on crime. Surely it goes without saying that we need to be tough on crime, but I have not seen anything intelligent from this Government to support their claim. Does the Prime Minister think it is intelligent to take 16,000 bobbies off the beat while crime against the person has increased, despite crime falling more generally? In Humberside, domestic violence has rocketed in recent years. I wonder whether the Prime Minister thinks it intelligent to take 440 police officers away from Humberside when levels of domestic violence are very definitely increasing. Does he think it is intelligent to sell off parts of the police force to companies such as G4S, which so monumentally failed to deliver for the Olympics?
	There is nothing intelligent coming from the Government in terms of police policy. They have been terribly incompetent. The alleged “I’ll have your job” comment from the former Chief Whip now seems somewhat ironic, given recent events. I wear with pride today my new cufflinks, “Plebs” and “Toffs”—[Interruption.] I am pleased to say that I consider myself to be a proud pleb, despite what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is shouting from a sedentary position.
	Policing is a public service and should not be for sale. There is no place for shareholder profit-making in policing. Policing decisions should be based on reducing crime and must not be taken in the shadow of shareholder profit. The Policing Minister has been encouraging forces to consider the value of private sector partnering to save money, and the Government justify this drive because of reduced budgets, yet it is the Government who are reducing budgets to dangerous levels. G4S clearly did not cope in the summer. That smashes any false belief that the private sector is always more efficient and effective than the public sector.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl Turner: Not at the moment.
	In the time remaining, I want to concentrate on police and crime commissioners. Despite my reservations about police and crime commissioners, I am reassured that Labour has chosen so strong a candidate as my predecessor, the right hon. Lord Prescott, who I know will definitely act as a final line of defence against privatisation.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl Turner: Not at the moment.
	Lord Prescott is worried about the fundamental changes to policing and considers them to be extremely alarming. It is unacceptable to put private security officers in areas where police have responsibility. Lord Prescott was quite right to point out recently that private employees will not be accountable and will be responsible only to private employers.
	In conclusion, there are serious concerns about creeping privatisation in the police service. The Peelian principles of policing with the consent of the community must be upheld. I am absolutely sure that Lord Prescott will not only do that, but raise awareness of the campaign in Humberside. I am convinced that he will be duly elected.

Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I start by paying tribute to our brave police officers and staff up and down the country for the work they do, and particularly the work of Bedfordshire police. I will read briefly from a letter published recently in the Dunstable Gazette describing just one example of what our police officers do day in, day out:
	“My elderly parents… were the unfortunate victims of a burglary at their home in Dunstable on July 5. I live in Norfolk, some 130 miles away, so was unable to get to their home for several hours. During that time they were visited by two officers from Dunstable Police Station who not only took control of the situation by reassuring my parents and contacting me, but also called the paramedics as they were concerned that my mother was going into shock. By the time I arrived they had cleaned up as best they could, removed the broken glass and mud from the kitchen, made them tea and tidied the bedrooms. They did not leave until the premises were secure and someone was with my parents. I must say thank you for the professional and compassionate approach taken by these officers. In these difficult times it is good to know that there are people like them who are prepared to do that bit extra.”
	Is not it fantastic that we have police officers up and down the country who will go to those lengths to look after our constituents?
	We have a goods news story in Bedfordshire: crime has fallen by 10% in the year to June 2012, according to the independent Office for National Statistics. That is better than the 6% fall nationally, better than nearby Essex and better than neighbouring Cambridgeshire. Bedfordshire police have done extremely well, and they have had to do that with a reduction in their grant funding. There has been a 5.6% fall in the money the police authority receives, although there was a slight increase in the money it got from the council tax precept.
	The Government have to save money because the previous Government continued to spend money we did not have year after year. Despite that, we are increasing money for the health service, honouring our obligations to the poorest of the poor and maintaining cash to schools. We have to save money in other circumstances to ensure that this country does not return to the financial mess we are rescuing it from.
	On budgeting, I ask the Minister to look again at damping, which has already been mentioned. Bedfordshire police suffer from the use of damping as an accounting policy within the Home Office. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to go back to the Home Office and request that this issue be reconsidered, because at the moment it is not fair.
	Our excellent new chief constable in Bedfordshire, Alf Hitchcock, has, in effect, managed to add 92 officers to those involved in neighbourhood policing work by rearranging the shift patterns. Many officers used to work from 8 am to 4 pm, but that is not when the burglars and criminals were generally out and about, so he reordered the shifts to make sure that more officers were out on the streets during evenings and weekends. In addition, the Home Office’s scrapping of form filling has saved the police 4.5 million hours of police time, which is equivalent to 2,100 extra police officers being out on the streets.
	Bedfordshire police went even further when they introduced a novel police station exclusion zone policy, led by excellent officers such as Inspector Frank Donnelly. This meant that any officer found in a police station, particularly during the winter evenings when most burglaries take place, would be challenged by a senior officer as to why he or she was there and not out on the streets. Such policies show that it is possible to reduce crime even with a reduced budget caused by having to deal with the deficit left to us by the previous Government—and all credit to Bedfordshire police for showing the way.
	Police stations are very important and we do need them, particularly in Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable; I have been clear with the chief constable about that. I am not wedded to any particular building, and I leave to the police the decisions as to which are the most appropriate for them to use. I also pay tribute to Bedfordshire police’s pioneering use of technology. They were one of the first forces to make sure that all their officers had BlackBerrys so that they are kept out on the streets on patrol where we need them.
	I pay tribute to those who have in the past served as members of police authorities up and down the country. In Bedfordshire, Peter Conniff has done an excellent job as the chair of the authority, as have long-standing members such as Councillor Peter Hollick, one of my constituents. They have done a good job. However, the election of a police and crime commissioner means that that individual will have a mandate from the people and will be accountable back to the people. That will sharpen up the oversight role of the police, and that is important. In Bedfordshire we have a candidate, Jas Parmar, who is a former police officer. He has the necessary experience and credibility with the police because he will not ask them to do anything that he has not done himself.
	It is incredibly important to look forward to the work of the College of Policing as from 1 December. That will lead to improved evidence-based outcomes, it will improve cost-effectiveness, further improve police
	professionalism, and it will enable the new commissioners to use the work of the college to audit police practice. This is an excellent innovation that has not yet been focused on sufficiently. In tandem with the police and crime commissioners, it will greatly help policing in our country.

Tom Greatrex: The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) is here to man the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—perhaps he has drawn the short straw—but he and I are, to a certain extent, tourists in this debate as we both represent constituencies in Scotland. It is interesting to listen to people’s concerns about police reform in England and Wales. In Scotland, we are moving towards a single police force from the early part of next year. At the last Scottish Parliament elections, the hon. Gentleman’s party was against that and my party was in favour. It is often argued that the scale of the efficiencies that can be achieved will help to make it a sensible thing to do. However, I note that today the chief constable-designate of the new Scottish police force, the current chief constable of Strathclyde, highlighted the fact that there will be a £140 million gap in his budget over the next two years as a result of establishing the new Scottish police force.
	I want to make three brief points. First, in the past few weeks I have spent some time in a couple of places in England—Manchester and Corby, for obvious reasons—and I have knocked on quite a few people’s doors and spoken to them about quite a lot of things. Other Members have spoken about people’s awareness of the PCC elections, and it struck me that there is in fact a stunning lack of awareness. I am very concerned—not from my own perspective and that of my constituency but on behalf of others in this House—that there will be a big problem in getting a decent turnout in the elections. The fact that very few people seem to have heard that they are happening underlines the serious problems that exist and what is likely to transpire.
	Secondly, I am in the middle of taking the police service parliamentary scheme, which I am sure other hon. Members present have either taken or will wish to take in the future. I have found it a tremendously useful experience in understanding and appreciating the variety of things that rank and file police officers do and the circumstances they deal with. That has been valuable, because the things that we in this House and policy makers talk about and how they get translated into the on-the-ground reality are not always one and the same.
	As well as having the delightful experience of being in the centre of Glasgow on a Friday and Saturday night and seeing what the police have to deal with, it struck me that the morale of many of the police officers was quite low. Some of the issues under discussion may not be directly related to them—policing is a devolved matter in Scotland—but I was struck by their feelings on the wider issues of how they thought the Government feel about policing and on the Government’s attitude to the police. These people have been doing the job for a number of years and are very proud of what they do, but they sensed that the Government were not always batting in their favour.
	The third issue that I want to address is not a devolved matter—police pensions and police pension commutation. The Minister of State might not be able to respond in detail—the issue probably comes under the brief of his colleague, the Policing Minister—but I would be grateful if he or his colleague responded to me in writing. One of my constituents paid into the police pension scheme for 30 years, but as the result of a misunderstanding by the Government Actuary’s Department he has lost out on thousands of pounds. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that, under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, GAD had an implied duty to undertake reviews of the commutation factors used in the police pension scheme but, because of what the previous Policing Minister described in a written answer as a mistaken understanding of this duty between the early 1990s and late 2006, those reviews did not take place. As the mistaken understanding has been described as one of a historic nature, my constituent is not entitled to a pension under the re-evaluated commutation factors introduced in 2008. Understandably, he is aggrieved by that.
	I appreciate that a number of cases have been raised with the pensions ombudsman and legal avenues, but I hope that the Minister will consider the issue again, because a number of people have been disadvantaged through no fault of their own. This is important to those former police officers. If the Government are behind policing and want to demonstrate that, they would send a powerful message by considering those important issues on behalf of former, as well as current, police officers.

Martin Vickers: This has been an interesting and measured debate. Some Opposition day debates can get somewhat heated, but we are discussing a serious issue that affects all our constituencies. That is worth noting. It is also worth noting that the Humberside force is particularly interested in the police and crime commissioner elections—interest in the area is considerably higher than that in some other areas—which might have something to do with the Labour candidate, Lord Prescott, who has been mentioned a number of times.
	In my 20-odd years as a councillor before entering the House, antisocial behaviour was guaranteed to be the one issue raised time and again on the doorstep and through calls from constituents. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has said that it is still a major problem in her constituency. Clearly, there are pockets in all constituencies; it is a significant problem. There is no doubt that partnership working, which is particularly strong in the south bank of the Humberside force area, has been a major factor in combating it. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and I have regular meetings with our local commander. They are always very useful and balanced and we both benefit from them. We see the problems of the police, and of course we take our issues to them. There is no doubt that in both north and north-east Lincolnshire there is particularly strong liaison between the police and local authorities, which is significant.
	Elections are what give our public services vitality and dynamism. Ideas are put forward, and they provide an impetus and drive that can often be missing in the public sector given its non-profit element. Elections
	also bring accountability. Our public sector, whether it be social landlords, local authorities or the police themselves, can often be insensitive to the needs and priorities of residents, and the police commissioner elections will give the electorate a direct route to help determine the priorities of their local force.
	Of course, PCCs are about not just actual policing but fighting crime. Those of us who have served as councillors or Members of Parliament know that whenever there is a public meeting about policing—police liaison meetings and the like—people say that they want more visible policing. Of course, that is always difficult, because the professionals say, “Ah, yes, but don’t forget that a lot of investigations are carried out behind the scenes.” That is true, but the public have a right to the reassurance and safety of a police presence. It has to be said that police community support officers have made a considerable contribution in that regard.
	There have been fears about low turnout in the PCC elections. It would be foolish to assume that it will be higher than at local elections, which of course is essentially what they are. However, the candidacy of John Prescott in Humberside has certainly upped the publicity, and the local press in my constituency are covering it in considerable detail. When our excellent candidate Matthew Grove was in Cleethorpes a week or two ago and we had a street stall there, I was pleasantly surprised at the level of knowledge among the residents. They are a particularly bright bunch in Cleethorpes, of course, and there is no doubt that they have taken a great interest. What they want to do is to stop the Labour candidate above all else.
	We are approaching the elections with certainty that whoever is elected throughout the country will have the confidence of the electorate, unlike the unknown police authorities that have administered policing for many years. They have done so competently and diligently, but without any real accountability, which is what a body such as the police needs. I look forward to the elections, and I am confident that our candidates will be successful.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Six Members still wish to participate in the debate, so I shall reduce the time limit on speeches to five minutes, starting immediately.

Lisa Nandy: Last year, I had the privilege of spending several days shadowing police officers and staff across Greater Manchester. In those 12 months, I spent time on the beat with front-line police and with kidnap negotiators, call handlers and firearms officers. I also managed to provoke a minor public incident when I tweeted that I was policing a football match, only to have to reassure concerned members of the public in my constituency that there were also qualified police officers available, and that the big society had not yet quite extended to the Member of Parliament for Wigan being let loose with a horse to keep order and fight crime single-handedly.
	On a more serious note, I was amazed and impressed by the range and breadth of skills that police deploy on a day-to-day basis in all those different functions. They seek to enforce the law with the consent of the
	community—my chief constable, Sir Peter Fahy, often talks about policing by consent—and with determination and passion. That determination and passion is set against a difficult backdrop, and in my area of Greater Manchester astonishing cuts of 30% to police budgets have meant the loss of 1,200 staff. Such cuts affect not only those front-line PCSOs and police officers who have been lost over the past year, but vital functions that are not classed as front-line services such as call handlers—the face of the police to the public—and essential back-office functions such as IT which, if not properly run, can impede the ability of the police to do their job. That is compounded by cuts to other agencies such as health care, social services, the UK Border Agency and voluntary organisations, and the police are the one organisation that simply cannot walk away when problems arise.
	The impact on morale has been immense, and I am baffled—as is our candidate for police and crime commissioner in Greater Manchester, the former Member for Manchester Central—that at a time like this, the Government should see fit to spend £100 million on new police commissioners when police officers across the area are facing such enormous cuts. I have great respect for my local police force. It has reduced crime in very difficult circumstances—because of its can-do attitude and despite, not because of, the actions taken by Ministers who are supposed to represent them.
	It is hard to overstate the concern felt among the public and the police at all levels, and there is a general feeling among the police that Ministers neither understand nor value the unique role that they play. When police officers walk out the door every morning and say goodbye to their families, they simply do not know whether they will be coming back, which places an enormous toll on them and their families and friends. We recently saw how great that cost can be with the tragic murders of PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone in the Greater Manchester area, and I pay tribute to them. Those two young women exemplify the bravery and commitment to public service that the Conservative party does not understand or value.
	Policing is not just a job but a vocation, and the current combination of cuts and changes to the police sends a strong message that that good will is being exploited, which could have dangerous consequences. A combination of the Winsor review, changes to pensions, pay and conditions, and concern about the raising of the retirement age for police officers who do a difficult, gruelling, physical and emotional job every day, creates the sense that Ministers are not listening to front-line police officers and their families, and do not respect that unique role. When that is coupled with the recent row over the comments made by the former Chief Whip, and the Prime Minister’s refusal to sack him, there is a sense that not only do Ministers not respect the role and work of the police, but that they do not respect police officers themselves.
	Finally, if Ministers do not respect police officers who do that difficult job in communities, day in, day out, they do not respect the public and the high priority placed on law and order in this country. I urge Ministers to think hard about the changes they are making, and to listen to police officers on the front line—as I have done over the past 12 months—which I think would lead them to a different set of conclusions about where their priorities lie.

Andrew Percy: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). She made a thoughtful speech and although I did not necessarily agree with everything she said I have an image of the hon. Lady on a horse singlehandedly fighting crime in Wigan. I hope it will not come to that but, if it does, I am sure she will do a wonderful job.
	The elections for police and crime commissioner are incredibly important. When the proposals were first suggested I was a little nervous about them because of the cost involved in putting the elections together. However, as the campaign developed—a very vigorous election campaign is going on in east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire at the moment—I became sold on the reforms for a number of reasons.
	I was interested in comments by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who said, I think, that if turnout is low, we should perhaps consider revisiting the issue and look at whether we should abolish the proposals. If that is the case, I simply point to low turnouts in European parliamentary elections—I would support the right hon. Gentleman were he to propose abolishing the European Parliament on the basis of turnout alone. I do not think, however, that we should necessarily read too much into the turnout figures, and there are plenty of councillors up and down the country who were elected on a low turnout. Given the timing of the elections, I believe there will be a reasonable turnout in the former county of Humberside area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, there is appetite for the elections in our area.
	Replacing the police authority had become necessary. In 10 years serving as a local councillor, I never served as a member of the police authority, and nor did my Labour or Conservative ward colleagues. Therefore, the residents of the ward I represented never had a direct link into the Humberside police authority. Some people were fortunate enough to have a councillor who happened to be on the police authority, but the likelihood of that happening was minimal.
	Similarly, police authorities could not be held to account at the ballot box, because most members were not elected members of local authorities, and independent appointees and people from the Home Office were also members. I never bought the idea that the police authority was electable. I suspect that many more of the good burghers of Brigg and Goole can name the candidates for the PCC elections than can name the last chairman of the police authority.
	That is partly owing to the fact that Lord Prescott is doing what the Government want—he is ensuring a high-profile campaign in Humberside. I have found a good appetite in east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire for the elections. People want to know why somebody who spent £500 million trying to close our regional FiReControl should get the job. They want to know why somebody who spent £60,000 on foreign trips should get the job. They want to know why somebody wants the job when, in the Yorkshire Post in August this year, he described his current job in the following terms:
	“The House of Lords is a bit like a job centre, you have to go down there to get paid expenses, and it just gets totally tiring.”
	I can understand why the people of Brigg and Goole want to know why that man should have the job.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend raises some good points. He is absolutely right that interest in the candidates for the election is very high. Many of my constituents want to know why the wife of the former Member of Parliament for Gloucestershire, who campaigned specifically to abolish to Gloucestershire constabulary, is now standing to be the police commissioner for that very force. Does my hon. Friend agree that some curiosities are emerging?

Andrew Percy: All I can say in response to my hon. Friend is that you literally could not make it up. It gets more ridiculous by the day.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes has made clear, Conservatives have a very good candidate. They have lit the touch paper on the campaign locally with an exciting idea to charge drunks for wasting police time—that very good proposal needs to be explored. The shadow Minister talked about raising the turnout. I do not want him to come to Brigg and Goole, but he should visit my website, where he can learn of the vigorous campaign in the area. We have had a lot of street surgeries in Brigg and Goole, and many of my constituents have received four or five communications in the past few months. We are finding that there is a lot of interest, and we have a responsibility to try to get the turnout up.
	The right hon. Gentleman might find—because of the high-profile Labour candidate and the exciting ideas of the Conservative candidate—that there is an appetite for the campaign. It might not manifest itself in an 80% to 90% turnout on 15 November, and I am not pretending we will get to those figures, but people know about the election, and if they want to take part in it, they can.
	As I have said, I served as a local councillor for 10 years in my area. In some ways, the previous Government’s record on crime was very good. I was a bit nervous about the introduction of PCSOs and wondered what would happen, but it was a very good idea. I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work on PCSOs. However, it is not quite as has been presented. As I pointed out in an intervention, there was a reduction in police numbers in the Humberside force area back in 2007, but we did not see a single Labour Member locally campaigning against it. Labour Members now campaign against reductions in police numbers, but in 2007 they made the case for removing police officers and replacing them with civilians.
	Although good things happened on crime under the previous Government, there was a 400% to 500% increase in the local police precept. The good people of east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire could not hold anyone to account for that directly. When they get a police and crime commissioner, they will at least be able to hold to account the person who is charging them for their local policing.

Andrew Gwynne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
	I would like to pay tribute to the police officers, police community support officers and staff at Greater Manchester police, who are doing a great job in increasingly tough circumstances. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), I took part in the police service parliamentary scheme in 2007, and I found the experience invaluable. Sadly, I know how tough a job policing can be, because my home borough of Tameside recently saw the shocking murders of PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone—two dedicated police officers merely going about their normal duties on what appeared to be an ordinary day on an ordinary street in Tameside.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) passionately outlined the difficulties facing Greater Manchester police and the impact on policing across the Greater Manchester county. That is why I am glad to be supporting Tony Lloyd, the former Member for Manchester Central, as our police and crime commissioner candidate in Greater Manchester. I wish him well in his campaign and—I hope—his successful election on November 15. This weekend, I joined a huge Labour team out on the doorsteps of Dukinfield in my constituency to campaign for Tony, and over the summer recess I was delighted to campaign in both Denton and Reddish against police cuts with both Tony and my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. Tony is right to focus on community policing, because he recognises that in Tameside, Stockport and across the whole of Greater Manchester, effective crime fighting has improved the quality of life for residents.
	In the brief time I have, I would like to turn to a local issue that is a running sore: the closure of public police desks at police stations. That has happened at both police stations in my constituency, and I know from constituents who have contacted me that it concerns them greatly. The police desk in Denton police station closed in May, and the desk in Reddish closed in January, meaning that the nearest police desk to report crime for my constituents in Reddish is now in Stockport central police station, and in Denton my constituents must now travel to Ashton, making the service far more remote from both these communities. These are not back-office cuts; they are front-office cuts. My constituents consider the police stations in their communities front-line services.
	We should take into account some of the other innovations put together by the previous Labour Government. We have excellent local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in both Tameside and Stockport taking a multi-agency approach to tackling crime. Among others, they include the local council, housing associations, the police, the NHS and third sector bodies. They have helped to reduce the rate of reoffending, especially in respect of key crimes, such as burglary, car crime and antisocial behaviour, and they have successfully utilised tools, such as antisocial behaviour orders and antisocial behaviour contracts.
	Now, however, we find that community safety funding, which is allocated to every local authority in the country to tackle the causes of crime, has been cut by a massive 60% in just two years. I do not want to see all the progress undermined or even going into reverse. I fear that almost all these joint initiatives—patrollers and street wardens, CCTV, alley-gating and other projects—will be severely reduced or stopped altogether. We cannot afford to regress into a silo mentality, with the police
	pushing costs on to the NHS, councils and housing association, and councils pushing costs on to the police or other agencies. Total Place, an idea led by the Labour Government, ensured a holistic joint approach across agencies, and it worked.
	It is clear that the Government are letting all their policies be driven by short-sighted cost considerations. As I said at the start of my contribution, the police officers and staff in Greater Manchester police and all across the country do a great job in increasingly tough circumstances. Surely it is only right that we give them the proper finance, resources and tools to do the job well. That is what our communities want, it is what they demand and it is what they deserve.

Mark Reckless: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and we will all want to associate ourselves with his remarks about Greater Manchester police and, in particular, the tragic recent events in his borough.
	This summer, during the Olympics, we heard very often about the armed forces and how they stepped in at short notice, but many police officers also stepped in at short notice and had their summer holidays cancelled for the second time, having been called in for the riots the previous year. We should pay tribute to the work they do with very little publicity.
	I also welcome this debate. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have moved quite a way since I made my maiden speech on this subject. At that point, Labour appeared to me to be against elections full stop. The party that I had thought took its democratic instincts from the Chartists and the Levellers had become the party of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. That position has changed gradually and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) suggested the direct election of police authority chairs, which would of course be as expensive as the direct election of police commissioners.
	Initially, the line—I think this came from the APA—was that we should not have those elections because they cost money and that democracy was bad because it was expensive. The line has changed once again with this motion, however, and it seems that Labour Front Benchers object not to the principle or even to the cost of elections but to the cost of holding additional elections in November rather than May. At least some of us on the blue side of the House would have some sympathy with that view. I also congratulate the Labour party on putting up twice as many candidates in the election as our coalition partners.
	In due course, these directly elected individuals will be entrenched as the figure of authority to whom members of their local community believe that they can go and through whom they can make a difference to their police. We did not have that in the past; we had anonymous police authorities and very little changed. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy); the image of her policing a football match on horseback is very striking. She would be the perfect candidate for the enhanced specials that Craig Mackinlay, our candidate in Kent, is campaigning to introduce after the elections on 15 November.
	We need a single figure who is accountable, who can set policy, who can reflect what the public want and who can ensure that policing, like other democratically accountable public services, delivers on the ground what the people in the area have the right to expect. We need to move on from a system under which national policing policy was set not so much by the Home Office but by an entirely unaccountable and private company, of which Sir Norman Bettison was vice-president until earlier today—that is, ACPO. I am afraid to say that ACPO is fighting something of a rearguard action against the Government’s proposed changes. We recently heard that Sir Hugh Orde believes that it needs to carry on. He thinks that it could be renamed the police leadership executive board—PLEB. That was an unfortunate suggestion by Sir Hugh.
	The principle is that policy should be set by people who are elected and accountable. Each chief constable should report to their police and crime commissioner, who is elected. To the extent to which there is national policy, we look to the Home Office, to Ministers and to the Home Secretary to set it, through the National Crime Agency where appropriate. We will also look to the professional body for policing—the college—that is about to be introduced. Half of that body’s leadership will be civilian to ensure that it is properly accountable and reflects public desires and so that a group of senior officers do not go off on their own and try to carve up senior appointments, as recently happened—I believe—in the case of the head of the UK Border Force. I am glad that the Home Secretary has put a stop to that and that there will be a proper process.
	Once we have elected police and crime commissioners, it will not be Buggins’s turn and ACPO will not be making the decisions. People with a democratic mandate will set policing policy in our country on behalf of the public. I hope and believe that that can now be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Gavin Shuker: I begin by paying particular tribute to the officers of Bedfordshire police force who police my Luton constituency, and to the officers who police this place, too. We see so many of them that we sometimes forget to acknowledge them. There are serving police officers putting themselves on the front line to protect us even today in this House. They should be properly respected, but also properly resourced.
	I think it was Churchill who said that we shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us. I, for one, having been a Member of Parliament for the last two and a half years, have been incredibly proud to sit in this Chamber. I do not believe that it should be rebuilt in some kind of circular fashion. I believe there is something fundamentally decent and good about the way in which we do our governance in this country, whereby we sit on one Bench and the Government sit on the other, and we try to assume their roles, as they will one day assume ours. That, however, should not be our model for understanding how to do something as complex and as important as policing.
	I deeply regret the politicisation of the police, and I deeply regret the fact that we were unsuccessful when
	we marched through the Division Lobbies to try to defeat those proposals which, in my view, represent the worst of all possible worlds. We are where we are; I acknowledge that. In a moment, I will say a few words about the context of Bedfordshire and the choices people face as they go to the polls on 15 November.
	I fundamentally believe that there is something problematic about taking this route to politicise the police in this manner. Why do I say that? The other day, I met my area’s chief constable, who is called Alf Hitchcock—we had some sniggers earlier, but that is genuinely his name. He is a fantastic chief constable. I went to see him to talk about contemporary policing issues, and it was stated that the election campaign would begin to skew our view and our public statements on the quality and standard of policing. This applies not just in the run-up to the election—many of us across the House will have made the link in our own thoughts—but after the election, too, for the subsequent three and a half years. We will start to view our policing through that lens, based on who has been elected and who has not. I hope that we can aspire to a greater place than that in our political life. The reality is that the rules, like the buildings, are shaped and then they will begin to shape us. This model of doing policing will change how we approach policing locally. I deeply regret that.
	I regret it, too, because of the door that is opened. Those who are ideologically committed to pushing through the reforms have now fled the scene—on foot or by plane to California. They have taken the view that by putting these reforms in place we would get good-quality independent candidates, but the reality is that with a deposit set at £5,000, that will not happen. In my Bedfordshire police authority area, we have an English Defence League candidate who was arrested this weekend, yet he will still be on the ballot paper because he is out on bail. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that brings us to that stage, when we are dealing with the people who—day in, day out—defend us and defend the most marginalised in our communities.
	To deal briefly with the Bedfordshire context, there are two clear and pressing issues. Others have talked about the impact of 20% police cuts. I believe that we should not elect someone who is a cheerleader for those cuts. I believe we should elect candidates right across the country who say that they will work collectively to put pressure on the Home Office to realise the folly of what it is doing. We should not elect candidates who are simply willing to outsource everything as a solution to those cuts. In Bedfordshire, Olly Martins is the Labour candidate, a fantastic candidate. He has pledged publically that the option to outsource back-office functions to G4S—the same organisation that got us into such difficulty with the Olympics when the police had to be brought in to bail them out—will be off the table if he is elected. He will stand against the Tories’ 20% cuts.

Richard Graham: I want the House to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying about police delivery and police expenditure. In the county of Gloucestershire last year, costs went down by 4% and crime went down by 4%. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to say to my constituents, “We want to see expenditure up, crime up and your council bills going up as well”? Is that the message he would like to give out?

Gavin Shuker: My answer to that question is very simple. Public safety always comes first, and chief constables are having to make impossible decisions, but I think it reprehensible that the decision to put something as important as policing in the hands of private companies is being forced on chief constables.
	Olly Martins is running against a Conservative candidate who has said:
	“It is not the be-all and end-all if people don’t see a policeman for five years.”
	He added:
	“What people do not want is bobbies on the beat.”
	I fear that, if a vote is cast and a Conservative candidate is elected, that is exactly what will happen.
	This is a high-stakes election, and we know that there will be a low turnout for it. I want to encourage everyone in my constituency to vote, but I fear for where we will end up as a result of these reforms.

Wayne David: I Regardless of how we voted on the question of the introduction of police and crime commissioners, all Members on both sides of the House agree that we must do everything possible to ensure that there is a reasonable turnout on 15 November. It worries me that a range of people have expressed deep concern about the turnout. The Electoral Reform Society believes that it may be only 18.5%, which, it says, would constitute an historic low. However, as a number of Members have pointed out, that does not mean that people are not concerned about the issue of policing; in fact, they are deeply concerned about it.
	In my constituency, people fear that there could well be a cut of some 20% in police funding over the next few years. They want to see more, not less, neighbourhood policing. They are also deeply worried about the lack of consultation on the closing of front desks in police stations: they want to see consultation on whether resources are being used effectively. They are also worried about the antisocial behaviour that still blights a number of our communities.
	Only the other week, I attended a public meeting in a community called Graig-y-Rhacca. Those decent, hard-working people are still blighted by the activities of a relatively small number of persistent offenders, and they want to see more policing in their community, not less. Those issues have been brought to my attention because I am the local Member of Parliament, but they have also been brought to the attention of the excellent Labour PCC candidate, Hamish Sandison, who is doing a very good job in travelling around the Gwent police area as much as possible.
	We all know that the Electoral Commission is sending pamphlets to every household in the country, and that is commendable. However, I fear that the Home Office website will be very limited, and that it will not be supplemented by other information disseminated directly to individual households. As we have heard, some 7 million people will be excluded from getting that information directly because they do not have access to the internet.
	The Government have produced advertisements over the last few weeks. I hope that they increase awareness, but it must be said that there is concern about the way in which they depict young people, and also that they are
	giving some people the impression that the PCCs will have more powers than will actually be the case. We know that the PCCs will have no responsibility for operational matters, but will make the chief constables accountable for them, and will themselves engage in wider strategic and funding issues. However, the advertisements do not make that clear.
	I now want to focus on the fiasco—for it is a fiasco—of the bilingual ballot forms, partly because it is important in itself but also because, I fear, it is indicative of the wider, ham-fisted approach of the Home Office to the elections. The Opposition said some 12 months ago that there was a need for a statutory instrument—a piece of secondary legislation—to come before this House to enable bilingual Welsh and English ballot papers to be provided for the elections. Our advice was ignored. The result was that a few weeks ago the Home Office suddenly woke up to the fact that it could not have English-only ballot papers in Wales and belatedly introduced a piece of secondary legislation. However, it is not absolutely certain that there will be enough time to get it through. Therefore, all the authorities in Wales have been told that there should be two sets of ballot papers—one in English and one in English and Welsh—at a cost of £350,000 extra. The cost will be paid by the Government—it will be taxpayers’ money—which is a total waste of money. It is the first time that ballot papers will be thrown in the bin before an election.
	That, I fear, is indicative of how the Government have approached this whole election—a lack of planning and a lack of strategy. I very much hope, even at this belated moment, that the Government will provide more resources for the elections, so that more people are aware of them and will come out and vote.

Diana Johnson: We have had an interesting debate this afternoon on policing and the flagship coalition policy of police and crime commissioners in the 41 police authority areas outside London. It has been noticeable that we have heard only from Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament in this debate. No Back-Bench Liberal Democrat MP has spoken. Liberal Democrats seem to be standing in only 24 of the 41 police authority areas, despite their voting for the policy, but then perhaps they are still making up their mind on whether they support it or not.
	There have been some excellent contributions to the debate, with many from the Humberside area. It is good that the Labour candidate in Humberside, the noble Lord John Prescott, has had so much publicity this afternoon. It is noticeable that the Conservative candidate does not seem to feature very much at all.
	Let me turn first to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who spoke with great authority as a former Home Secretary. He reminded us of Labour’s achievement in government. He spoke about the reduction in crime levels, including the 64% reduction in domestic violence that we saw under the Labour Government, and the focus on that particular crime, which for many years had not been seen as a matter for the police. He also talked about the important role that the police play in partnership working and how important it is to ensuring that crime continues to fall.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) raised the important issue of funding levels and the inequity of Surrey seemingly receiving more money than forces in areas such as the west midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) spoke about London policing, with 463 fewer officers already in the Metropolitan police. She talked about knife crime and the concerns of young people in the capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) challenged the slogan used by the Prime Minister on Monday—“tough but intelligent”—in his speech on crime, which I think is the first he has made since becoming Prime Minister. My hon. Friend focused on the lack of intelligence in that slogan and in the policies that the Government have been pursuing over the past two and a half years. He also declared himself as a “proud pleb”.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke as a Scottish MP, but from the perspective of someone with fresh eyes looking at what was happening with the elections. He talked about the fact that many people do not know that the elections are happening and about his experience with the police parliamentary scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said that she had been amazed and impressed during the time she spent with the police. She talked about the important concept of policing by consent and the impact of cuts in her constituency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) spoke about his experience on the police parliamentary scheme and, again, the effect of cuts in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) spoke about the complexities of policing and the politicisation of the police through the policies that the Government are pursuing. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) talked about the shambles in Wales with the ballot papers and the cost that the taxpayer will have to pick up because of the Government’s failure to count days again, which seems to be a running theme.
	Let me turn to the policy of having police and crime commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) stated, the elections will cost £100 million, plus the £350,000 that will have to be paid to put the ballot papers right in Wales. This flagship policy must be set against the backdrop of the fact that £100 million would pay for 3,000 new police officers. This is at a time when 15,000 police officers are to be cut by 2015, and when we already know that 6,800 police officers have been cut from the front line in the first two years of this Parliament, which is more than experts had predicted would be cut the whole of the Parliament. There is real concern, too, about the headlong rush into mass privatisation, and the failure to learn the lessons from what happened this summer with G4S.
	Over the past four weeks the policing story dominating the airwaves has been a senior Cabinet Minister swearing at police officers and reportedly calling them “plebs”. In the past two and a half years, the coalition has made the job of being a police officer much harder. It has restricted the use of CCTV and DNA, it is weakening antisocial behaviour orders and it has cut funding to work with communities, and young people in particular.
	Labour opposed the police and crime commissioner model for very good reasons, but in the coming election we cannot leave policing to the Tory candidates alone, who we know are cheerleaders for cutting front-line police officers. The issues are far too important for us to stand aside. We are opposed, however, to these elections being held in one of the darkest and coldest months of the year. Can the Minister explain why we are having these elections in November? Is this a deal that the Liberal Democrats did because they did not want an election in May, when they were going to do so badly in the local council elections?
	For the record, let us be clear: the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of setting up the PCCs, with all the associated election and salary costs. Labour voted against that. Labour would much rather spend the money on front-line policing and cutting crime further, not cutting police numbers. The Liberal Democrats promised 3,000 extra police at the 2010 general election, in full knowledge of the deficit. When does the Minister expect to deliver on that promise?
	At the end of 2009, the Liberal Democrats released some research that said the Government should recruit 10,000 more police officers. Their leader, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), said if that were done, an “extra 82,265 crimes” would be solved each year. He said:
	“The Liberal Democrats are the only party who wants to catch more criminals by putting more police on the street.”
	Given their record and what they have said, it is unsurprising that the Liberal Democrats have chickened out of standing in many of the PCC elections.
	In an article in The Daily Telegraph, the former police Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), says that having TV adverts
	“cunningly placed during Downton Abbey”
	and “The X Factor” will ensure that people go out to vote. How naive. When I was in Nottingham earlier this week with our excellent candidate Paddy Tipping knocking on doors and talking to individuals, nobody knew about the elections. I am very sceptical about the comment of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice that 85% of people will see these advertisements. I repeat the comment of senior police figure Peter Neyroud on these elections:
	“If you could have constructed a manual on how not to conduct an election, the Home Office have managed to tick off just about every element of it”.
	The Electoral Reform Society has warned that this threatens
	“to result in the lowest turnout of any nationwide election in British history.”
	We are holding the elections in November when holding elections is much more expensive than at other times of the year. Doing so will also drive down turnout, and the elections are unpopular with the public in any case. Instead of a free post or a Government-backed booklet with information about the candidates to be sent to each voter, individuals can only go on to the Government website. Some 71% of over-75s have never used the internet, and neither have almost 20% of people in Wales. At a time when we want to encourage people to vote, the Government are immediately putting electors at a disadvantage. Belatedly, we are now told that there will be a telephone number voters can call to ask for information to be sent.
	What level of turnout is the Minister looking for to make these elections a success and give legitimacy to his Government’s flagship policy? As we have heard, the Minister said at his party conference that 20% is his aim. Is that correct? Interestingly, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice did not give him much support when he was challenged on this during his opening speech, so it seems that the coalition are split, again, on this matter.
	In conclusion, Labour wants to accelerate progress in cutting crime, not make that more difficult. Under Labour, we had more police with more powers, and we sent more criminals to prison. The streets became safer and crime fell by 43%. The coalition has been rowing back on police numbers and police powers. Worse still, the coalition is going to squander £100 million of taxpayers’ money on this shambles of a PCC election, so I ask hon. Members to support the motion.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this debate. You have doubtless heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a khaki election, and we have the green and brown of the khaki coalition looking after police interests in England and Wales. It is ideal for me to have the opportunity to respond to the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate and to what I see as the four main criticisms made of Government policy in the Opposition motion. They are as follows: first, that the Government are not spending enough money—a recurring theme; secondly, that we are insufficiently authoritarian when considering the right balance between the power of the state and the liberties of the individual; thirdly, that we are too hasty, as a Government, in our enthusiasm for greater transparency and public engagement in policing; and fourthly—this is an overarching theme—that we are too enthusiastic overall about reform of the police service.
	I shall go through those criticisms in the short time available. The first is that the Government are not spending enough money—this is what the motion describes as the “wrong-headed” pursuit of greater efficiency and value for money. It is, of course, always relevant to remind the House that the previous Government, having promised to abolish boom and bust, ended up presiding over an economy that went bust. The new Government came to office with our country looking down the barrel of a gun—we had a bigger deficit than Greece when we took office—and we had to make some difficult decisions to get to grips with that deficit. We have reduced the deficit, but this country is still borrowing a billion pounds every three days. Against that backdrop, it is just not credible to carry on spending money—borrowed money—with reckless impunity. The Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit, and as a service spending £14 billion a year, the police can and must make their fair share of the savings needed.
	Underlying Labour’s analysis is a fundamentally flawed case, and I will sum it up for hon. Members. According to Labour, “The more money you spend, the better the results you get”—never mind cutting bureaucracy or getting good value for the taxpayer; it is spend, spend, spend. The problem is that the results do not bear out Labour’s analysis. Last week, the most recent independent
	crime statistics were published. I am sorry to disappoint Labour Members, but crime has fallen. It has fallen by 6% over the past year and by 10% in the two years since this Government came to office. It has fallen by 12% in the last year
	—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Bryant, I ask you to stop shouting across the Dispatch Box now.

Jeremy Browne: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I was just reminding the House that the Government have presided over a 10% fall in crime in the past two years. The latest figures show that crime is lower in England and Wales than at any time since the official survey started in 1981. Chief constables are rising to the challenge of making efficiency savings and providing greater value for money. As Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said:
	“The front line is being protected”.
	Police reform is working. We have swept away central targets and reduced police bureaucracy. That shows that how the police are deployed, rather than their absolute numbers, is the key to cutting crime.

Diana Johnson: rose —

Jeremy Browne: Before I give way, let me put it like this to Labour: the best way to measure the success of a service is not whether we have spent more and more money on it, but whether we have got better and better results.

Diana Johnson: So does the hon. Gentleman agree with what his leader said—that if there were an additional 10,000 police officers, 82,265 crimes would be solved each year? Does the Minister support that, or was the Deputy Prime Minister talking nonsense—again?

Jeremy Browne: I think that what matters is what one does with the police. The team that wins the premier league is not the one with the biggest squad; it is the one that gets the best results, and that is what we are trying to do in policing.
	We see a hallmark of old Labour, new Labour and the exciting latest version that is somewhere in between in the second criticism in the motion: the casual authoritarianism of criticising the Government for
	“restricting the use of CCTV”.
	Yes, we do believe that there should be some restrictions on CCTV. We are striking the right balance between enabling the police to use modern investigative techniques such as CCTV and DNA evidence, and the police are using those techniques to great effect, but at the same time protecting the right of innocent members of the public to not be subjected to constant and unregulated surveillance.
	Labour’s third criticism reveals hostility to the idea of having democratically elected commissioners to increase accountability and give the public greater say in the policing of their community. That was a recurrent theme of the debate. That hostility, it must be said, is not shared by many Labour ex-Ministers, including two recent MPs, Tony Lloyd and Alun Michael, or by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott. If Labour Members are concerned about the election turnout,
	perhaps they should start by getting those three to pull their fingers out, get campaigning and explain the rationale for their candidacy. Every Member of this House, elected as we are, should want election turnouts to be strong, and I am delighted that the profile of the elections is rising in Cleethorpes, Brigg and Goole, and Denton and Reddish. I believe that it will rise across England and Wales in the coming weeks.
	Labour has to make up its own mind. During the debate, we have heard criticism of the Government on the one hand for spending too much money on PCC elections, and on the other hand, for not spending enough. Whatever the turnout, the House can be sure of this: the new PCCs will have a stronger mandate than the police authorities they are replacing. Many police authority members from all parties have done sterling work on behalf of their communities. We recognise and applaud that, but with the best will in the world, police authorities were hardly delivering public accountability and transparency: in the most recent survey, only 7% of the public were even aware that police authorities existed. We should not be fearful of giving the public a say, and parties in this House should not be discouraging people from participating in a democratic process. I hope that people will find out more and that they will vote.

Alan Johnson: Probably less than 7% of the public are aware that the hon. Gentleman exists. Does that mean he is doing a bad job?

Jeremy Browne: In the area where I stood for election, I got 49% of the vote, and I hope the figure will go up next time, but we will see; one can never take anything for granted. Labour got 5% in my area, which is 1% more than UKIP.
	The final theme that runs through the Labour motion is deep, cautious, conservative resistance to fresh thinking and change. Beyond spraying around more and more borrowed money, we see no ideas, no imagination and a closed mind to reform. It is easy for Opposition parties to lapse into idle oppositionism—we have all been there—and in many ways Labour today reminds me of what the Liberal Democrats were like before we became a serious party of Government. The House may be interested to know that that trait is not new to Labour in opposition. Let me quote what a previous shadow Home Secretary said when his party was last out of government. I shall reveal the name: Tony Blair—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Dawn Primarolo: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 218, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could use your good offices with the maintenance department of the House. The most important lift in Portcullis House has been out of commission for more than a month, which impedes our ability to get to
	votes and to work and meetings on time. It should not be impossible in a modern, 21st-century Parliament to get a lift repaired in less than a month.

Dawn Primarolo: I am eternally grateful that I am not responsible for maintenance in the House of Commons, so strictly speaking that is not a point of order. The Leader of the House has heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments and I am sure that he will take the matter further. I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that the last Division was not exactly unexpected in its timing. I am sure that Members bear such things in mind.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Major Accidents from Hazardous Substances

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 18257/10 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a draft Directive on control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances; and welcomes the Government’s efforts, during the negotiations on the Directive, to secure appropriate controls on sites with major accident potential while ensuring that the burdens on operators and regulators of such sites are kept to a minimum.—(Nicky  Morgan .)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Ordered,
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure, which was laid before this House on 19 October, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Nicky Morgan.)

PETITION
	 — 
	The Green Howards

Tom Blenkinsop: This a petition on the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment, the Green Howards. The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Teesside and North Yorkshire,
	Declares that the 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment (Green Howards), who served this country loyally since 1688, is both a symbol of and major employer in both Teesside and North Yorkshire.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Defence to safeguard the jobs of the battalion’s soldiers, and that it further urges the Secretary of State to protect the battalion’s name, badge and proud heritage.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001126]

Onshore Gas

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky  Morgan .)

Mark Menzies: I am delighted to have secured this evening’s Adjournment debate on an extremely important issue. Many of the issues related to onshore gas exploration and extraction are, rightly, of concern to residents in my constituency and throughout the country. I am pleased to see a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends present and taking a keen interest in the debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who recently secured a Westminster Hall debate on wider energy interests in Lancashire. I know that he, like me, is concerned for the well-being of not only the environment in the county but the well-being of all our constituents. The issue is not just prevalent in Lancashire. Shale gas reserves have been found in the constituencies of a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, so it is right that we have this debate. It is timely, because any decision on the future of the industry is still to be made.
	I pay tribute to the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), for his work on the matter. It was my privilege to work as his Parliamentary Private Secretary for two years, and I know how hard he worked on this issue and many others. I wish him well in what he does next.
	I have subsequently had the opportunity to meet the new Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), on several occasions to talk about regulations on shale gas and more widely. I know that he takes the issue as seriously as I do, and I am grateful for all that he has done to date. I am pleased that he will be responding to this evening’s debate.
	The issue that we have come here to discuss is extremely important, particularly in Fylde, where, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, two earth tremors were triggered by the actions of Cuadrilla Resources last year when the Preese Hall gas well was fracked. As a resident of St Anne’s myself, I know at first hand the concern that that has generated. It left many constituents worried about the way in which the process is regulated.
	It must be said that we have come some distance since then in understanding what is required and in making improvements to the regulations surrounding the emerging industry. Notably, there is the traffic light system to ensure that tremors are unlikely to occur again, which is most welcome. I am further pleased that I have received assurances from the Minister that his Department is taking on board recommendations from the reports of both the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering on shale gas.
	I was also most grateful that my calls for a shale gas strategy group to be established, encompassing the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, were swiftly acted upon. Ensuring that there are no gaps in regulation and that there is cross-departmental understanding on shale gas is extremely important. I know that representatives of each organisation are working extremely hard.
	The debate is therefore not about bringing into question the expertise or integrity of the people involved in those regulatory bodies. I was extremely pleased that representatives of the HSE, the EA, DECC and Lancashire county council were present at a public meeting that I held in Fylde. I know that they were left fully aware of my constituents’ concerns and saw at first hand the level of research and knowledge that Fylde residents have accumulated over the past year. Rather, then, the debate is about supplementing their work to ensure that we achieve a gold standard of regulation.
	We still have some way to go before we have a regulatory system in place for any potential stage of development. We need a system that addresses all concerns, that can be properly enforced and that sets an example to industry across the world. That is particularly important for the UK, where population density will always be a factor.
	As it stands, what is supposed to happen is that DECC assesses and licences drilling, development and production activity; the environmental regulator with jurisdiction for the geographical area in question monitors and regulates the environmental aspects of shale gas fracking; the HSE monitors shale gas operations from a safety perspective; and the relevant planning authorities have a key role in considering the acceptability of the activities in question from the viewpoint of traffic movements, visual intrusion, consistency with local plans and so on.

Paul Maynard: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the plans for gas storage in salt caverns in the Wyre estuary and the possibility of fracking are a dangerous combination, given what he said earlier about the risk of earthquakes and earth tremors occurring again?

Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which was touched upon in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood secured in Westminster Hall. I know that the Minister heard that point and is well aware of it.
	Many of the people who have been involved in the process are experts in their field, but despite that, I do not believe that the regulatory system is robust or transparent enough to instil public confidence should permission be granted to the industry. That is why I am calling for an independent panel of experts to be set up without delay. Many questions and concerns still surround the shale gas process, and it is vital that we have a panel for three purposes: to look at each issue in detail; to fully appraise the risk; and to ensure that specific regulations are in place to deal with that. If part of the process cannot be dealt with safely through regulation, an alternative method should be found. If, however, an alternative way of carrying out that process is not possible, it must not be done.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this important debate. Does he agree that one key issue of regulation and safety, particularly in my constituency, is the impact on the water table? It is not yet clearly understood by all that many of my constituents draw water from their own boreholes directly from the water table, and do not receive mains water.

Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend’s point is exactly the type of concern that I would want the panel to consider. It is a case of, “Bring everything out; let’s examine it independently, robustly and with integrity, and then let’s answer the questions”. I believe that the establishment of a panel is of the utmost importance and must be achieved forthwith. Should the Secretary of State give the go ahead for the resumption of fracking, I will demand on behalf of my constituents intense scrutiny of all operations on the Fylde. Fracking rightly demands careful monitoring and full transparency, and I believe that work by the current regulatory bodies will be aided and enhanced by the presence of an independent panel of experts.
	The panel is designed not to create more bureaucracy but to allow questions to be independently answered and solutions developed. It is crucial that the panel is open and accessible so that all interested parties—including Fylde borough council, which is about to establish a scrutiny group to look at this issue—have a means of getting their questions answered, and a body through which submissions can be made.
	I have been assured that the technical competence of the regulators is not in doubt among those working in the industry, but the perceived lack of transparency, engagement and on-the-ground presence is prompting fears among many in the local communities that the industry does not receive sufficient oversight. We must therefore ensure that the UK continues its proud record of having world-leading energy regulators. Due to the developmental nature of the process in the UK, it is vital that we support the work of current regulatory bodies. In no uncertain terms can we allow the environment or the well-being of our constituents to be compromised.
	Cuadrilla Resources is still unaware of how much shale gas it will be able to recover. Although the reserves may be considerable, it is unclear what level of gas can be recovered, or even if that is commercially viable. I urge the Minister to ensure that once that information is available, the panel will look at its impact on all key aspects of the local economy.
	As I have told the Minister on previous occasions, constituents have raised with me a number of concerns that I would, in future, expect to be addressed by the panel. Those concerns are wide ranging and often technical in nature, but given the time allowed for this debate, it is not possible to go into each one in detail. Some concerns, however, are particularly worthy of mention.
	First, many of my constituents are concerned that there are no specific onshore exploration regulations. The offshore regulations, developed in the 1990s following the Piper Alpha disaster, are perhaps not sufficient to address all the issues that arise from moving a process onshore, especially in a relatively populated area such as Fylde.
	Secondly, although I welcome the environmental assessment currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency, I call for environmental impact studies to be undertaken on any proposed site, regardless of size. Furthermore, does the Minister have any plans to encourage a health impact assessment in a similar vein? A number of constituents have raised that issue with me, many of whom live within a couple of miles of potential fracking sites.
	Importantly, the number of shale gas pads that would be developed in Fylde has been under speculation. We
	must take into account the population density and beautiful countryside of Fylde, and it would be completely unacceptable for that to be compromised by the proliferation of those sites. I speculate that similar situations will arise where shale gas reserves are discovered in other areas of the country. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that any shale gas operator is fully transparent on the location and number of production pads that they seek to develop, and that the planning process is sufficiently rigorous.
	Knowing the countryside of Fylde as I do, I know it would be completely unacceptable to take many sites to extraction phase. For example, I would consider the current site at Anna’s road, where exploratory drilling is taking place, to be an unacceptable location for extraction to occur. I would vehemently oppose its development as such.
	If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall list other issues worthy of mention: the storage and disposal of fracking flow-back water; cement quality and the inspection of cement bond logs; the potential for subsidence; the examination of formation integrity tests as they are executed; surface methane detection; the publication of fracking chemicals used at each well; visual impact; impacts on local animals and welfare; potential flaring; and what happens to a site when it is no longer in use. It is important to note that that is not an exhaustive list, but it goes some way to highlighting the issues that I would expect the panel to look into—and it should explain its conclusions to the public. I appreciate that such a regime would require further funding, but for the panel to work, it is important that it is adequately resourced. We should not be putting a price on environmental considerations in my constituency or wider afield.
	In a letter from June this year, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change assured me that, if the decision is to permit further fracking, he will respond in detail to the points directly linked to the exploration activities and on what further steps might be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a regulatory regime throughout any future production phase. Will the Minister reiterate this pledge to the Secretary of State if such a decision is taken?
	I have called for the establishment of a committee of independent experts to look at all aspects of the process. Will the Minister take personal responsibility to ensure that that is done, and will he personally oversee the work of the committee, because it must be robust and of a Rolls-Royce standard? In the event of the Secretary of State giving permission for the shale gas industry to move from the exploration phase to the extraction phase, the panel should not only continue, but ramp up its work and take on the responsibility for scrutinising the onshore gas sector. Drawing on perceptions that have been formed from this point onwards, I would expect regular and thorough on-the-ground inspections from each regulator body; regulations that are rigorously enforced; and considerable sanctions brought to bear should any breach of such regulations take place.
	I have not addressed other aspects of the industry, such as how the gas, once extracted, would get to the grid, how the potentially large revenues could be shared with the local community, or how shale gas could play a part in our energy mix in future. I expect the Minister and his fellow Ministers will take those issues on board
	and address them in due course should we ever get to that point. Shale gas might well have a role to play in our energy future, but that can happen only if it is backed up by a robust, open and exhaustive regulatory regime.
	I will continue to pay close attention to the matter and will have no fear in raising my concerns or those of my constituents should we feel that progress is not being made. I am sure the Minister would expect no less of me. I have said in the House on many occasions that Fylde is a beautiful place to represent. I will continue to do everything within my ability to ensure that neither the environment nor the economy of this precious corner of our green and pleasant land are ever compromised.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has secured this debate and, in doing so, has illustrated once again that he personifies both rigour and vigour in the defence of his constituents, and I congratulate him on doing so.
	The arrival of shale gas exploration in the UK in 2010, with operations almost wholly concentrated in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has quite understandably raised concerns among local residents and others about its impact. It is a new industry to Britain, and it is potentially intrusive. We need to be mindful of the amenity locally and the safety of the community.
	My hon. Friend is clearly well acquainted with both the mechanics and potential impacts of the operations in both the current exploration phase and what might be expected if exploration is successful and the company involved develops a larger-scale operation to extract the resource.
	The House will know that shale gas production has had a huge impact in the United States of America. It has had a major impact on supply and driven the price of gas below what could reasonably have been predicted only a few years ago. It has happened very quickly—over perhaps just twenty years—with a truly remarkable increase over the last five. When it started, this rapid expansion was mainly located in relatively sparsely populated areas. It is important to understand that the difference between the United Kingdom and the United States, in these terms, concerns both geology and geography. More recently, however, there has been an expansion into more populated areas and the pace and scale of activity has given rise to concerns within communities over both the short and longer term impact on their health, their local communities and their way of life.
	It is worth describing a couple of the features of shale gas activity that differentiate it from more conventional oil or gas production: the use of boreholes that run horizontally through the shale formation, and the creation of permanent fractures in the solid rock along that borehole. Together, these enable the gas to flow more freely into the well, acting in a manner similar to tributaries draining the catchment of a river. The increased concern about these techniques, particularly the creation of fractures—fracking—in north America coincided with the commencement of activities here in the UK in Fylde. Not unreasonably, our communities looked across
	the Atlantic and were genuinely worried by the reports, although often shown to be exaggerated, of what the impact might be here.
	Not least in that was the portrayal of a US industry without effective regulation riding roughshod over local communities. This coincided with the emergence of a clear story of the failure of regulatory and operational control that led the Macondo disaster. Those worries were compounded when early activities in Fylde initiated small earth tremors, to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention previously and of which the House will be aware. This effect had not previously been reported in connection with shale gas fracturing, although they were associated with the drilling for hydrothermal energy and with large-scale waste water disposal.
	It is quite right, therefore, that my hon. Friend should seek reassurance over the strength and coverage of the UK’s regulatory regime, and that he should seek further scientific and engineering reassurance that shale gas activities can safely move to an extraction phase. As I said, I will come to his specific points shortly, but first I will address some of the most prevalent concerns.
	The first concern is aquifer pollution. There have been many reports in the US that shale gas operations have caused contamination of aquifers, and consequently of drinking water drawn from the aquifers, with fracking fluids or methane, and there have been reports of explosions and dramatic footage of householders setting light to their kitchen taps.
	On investigation, some of those incidents, including that of the flaming tap, have proved to be unconnected to oil or gas operations—they were caused by contamination of water supplies by methane of recent biological origin—but there were cases in which the methane did originate from gas production. This has been attributed to unsatisfactory well construction or cementing. As the Energy and Climate Change Committee and the Royal Society have both commented, this demonstrates the importance of ensuring the integrity of the well. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) drew attention to the concerns in his locality about the contamination of water, which might well extend beyond the immediate area, given how water travels. As for fracking fluids, one reported instance of aquifer contamination remains under investigation, but the present state of the evidence is that there are no confirmed examples of such contamination.
	Concern in the US about the use of fracking chemicals in extraction is based largely on the fact that the chemicals and other substances used were not disclosed, apparently because of commercial secrecy. In that respect, the situation in the US is very different from the situation here, which is quite straightforward. Before commencing, anyone carrying out drilling operations must consult the Environment Agency, which will consider the possible impacts on the environment, including on groundwater. The agency has made it clear that it will require the disclosure of all chemicals and other substances that may be injected into the subsurface, so that it can assess whether there is any risk of harm through contamination of groundwater. It will also publish those details on its website and beyond. Operations by any operator will be assessed case by case by the relevant environment agency. The agencies have powers to prevent any activities that they consider to pose a threat to the environment, but the circumstances here are very different from those that prevail in the United States.
	Concern has also been expressed about water use and it is true that fracking for shale gas uses substantial quantities of water. Cuadrilla, the organisation involved in the exploration in the north-west, used about 10,000 tonnes for the well mentioned by my hon. Friend, but as that is a one-off use rather than a continuing demand it is unlikely to be of concern in most areas. By way of a comparison, 10,000 tonnes is only about 1% of the water that United Utilities Water supplies to the north-west every day. In any case, any abstraction of water for industrial purposes requires the permission of the relevant environment agency, which will not be forthcoming if the proposed abstraction is not sustainable in that area once account has been taken of existing and foreseeable demands.
	The fourth area about which concern has been expressed is subsidence. It is important to understand that that concern is partly informed by experience in the North sea, where there has been significant subsidence under a drilling platform sufficient to require a major re-engineering of the platform to raise operating decks substantially. The producing rock in that case is chalk, however, which is more compressible than shale. The structure of shale is quite different and no significant compression of shale is expected as a result of gas extraction. The empirical evidence from the US supports that analysis, as despite the drilling of tens of thousands of wells and production experience over a decade or more there has been no report of subsidence attributable to shale gas production.
	Let me turn now to my hon. Friend’s specific suggestions, which he has been assiduous in drawing to my attention today and previously. I have made it very clear that we will have a dialogue with those hon. Members who are affected and will allow them to express their concerns, which will be dealt with thoroughly, courteously and effectively—at least they will while I am around, because that is how I operate. I have taken the opportunity previously—I do so again today—to provide reassurances on a number of my hon. Friend’s most prominent concerns. In doing so, I am not attempting to fill the formal role he has proposed of providing independent scientific advice on the impacts of shale gas activity, although I have been able to draw on a considerable and growing body of scientific opinion.
	The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change carried out an inquiry into shale gas in 2011. It concluded that, provided good industry practice is followed and careful regulation applied, hydraulic fracturing or fracking is unlikely to pose a risk to ground water or aquifers. In addition, and on the more specific question of the implications and mitigation of fracture-induced seismic activity, my Department commissioned and is studying the findings of a report from an independent panel of scientific and engineering experts, which has been subject to public scrutiny, and deciding whether to permit the recommencement of fracking in Lancashire.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, this summer the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering provided an authoritative and comprehensive study of the potential risks of shale gas extraction and how they can be managed. It is fair to say that their conclusion was that the risks could be managed if best practice and firm regulation were applied. A number of recommendations
	were made for improving the scientific understanding of key aspects of the process—for instance, on induced seismicity.
	I believe that the work has provided a sound basis for a decision on whether to resume exploration activity, but, as my hon. Friend has said, the scale of an eventual extraction phase would be different and, although many of the techniques are similar, the scale and introduction of production activities would give rise to additional scientific and engineering questions. I can as a consequence see considerable merit in building on that work, particularly on the excellent work of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, to provide a continuing means by which public concerns over the potential impacts of shale gas extraction can be examined. I am aware that there is a strong regulatory framework in place, not least through the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, whose purpose is protect against harmful activity. In addition, there is a stringent planning process to which any extraction phase must be subjected. I emphasise—my hon. Friend raised the point in his speech—that the scale of any application for continuing development would be subject to that planning process, and would, of course, be likely to be subject to a public inquiry if it was called in, which would allow the fullest possible examination by local people and local representatives of the implications of any applications.
	Great care will need to be taken not to duplicate or weaken the existing statutory safeguards, but I will undertake to explore with my Department’s chief scientific adviser, Professor David MacKay, whether it would be possible to provide a mechanism or channel by which to provide authoritative responses to specific areas of scientific or engineering concern.
	Furthermore, I hear what my hon. Friend says about oversight and coherence, and the need to involve Ministers directly in that oversight. Again, I shall give that full consideration and I hope to be able to return to this matter, with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, and make some proposals on how lines of accountability and responsibility can be confirmed in new arrangements.
	My hon. Friend is aware that we have already established a strategy group at official level to ensure full co-ordination of the work of the existing regulators. This is chaired by my Department and includes all those agencies. It has met regularly and is looking at the challenges; it will obviously ramp up its work as developments take place in the north-west. In parallel, the Environment Agency is currently undertaking a detailed review to ensure that it has the right powers and resources to protect the environment during the extraction phase. Other regulators, including the Department and the Health and Safety Executive, are involved in that review.
	While shale gas is new to the UK, oil and gas activities are not. Drilling and production has been conducted onshore since the 1930s, and even fracking is an established technology. Few people know that the UK hosts Europe’s largest onshore oil field in Dorset, which has been producing oil for over two decades without harm to the environment or the community.
	The regulators of these activities, particularly the HSE and the EA, are long experienced and are acknowledged as world class in their field. That is not to say, however—I assure my hon. Friend again—that I would rule out any improvements to the arrangements. If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will take the
	observations he has made into consideration and investigate what further steps can be taken, building on what we have, in order to give my hon. Friend and his constituents some further tangible assurance that the regulation of any extraction will be comprehensive, co-ordinated and well resourced.
	Shale gas provides an exciting opportunity for this country. It should not be exaggerated, but neither should it be underestimated. It is critical, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, that it is conducted safely and with appropriate regulation. Where the regulation we have in place needs to be amended, added to or altered, it is
	important for Ministers to deal with it quickly and effectively. I assure him that that discussion will continue to take place, and I am more than happy to take a personal active interest in this matter so that he can assure his constituents and others that the Government are doing all that is necessary to make shale gas a great success. I thank my hon. Friend once again for giving me the opportunity to be able to say that this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Public Bodies

That the draft Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 260, Noes 206.

Question accordingly agreed to.